Late Friday, President Donald Trump carried out one of his primary campaign promised this week with a suspension on the entry of all refugees to the United States and an order for “extreme vetting” as a condition for entry for some foreign citizens. The order below specifically suspends entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, bars Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocks entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order had immediate impact on travelers who were denied entry to the United States and held at some airports like JFK. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging the executive order but those challenges will face a considerable challenge in seeking an injunction by a federal court.
Curiously, the order notes the 9-11 attacks but the order does not cover the countries that were the sources for those attackers, including Saudi Arabia and UAE. I think that this order is a mistake and contradicts our values. However, I do not agree with some of my colleagues at GW and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional. Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump.
First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written. (Trump’s comments that he wants to prioritize Christians could raise more compelling arguments of religious discrimination).
Second, the law largely suspends entry pending the creation of new vetting procedures. That is based on a national security determination made by the President. Courts have generally deferred to such judgments. A president’s authority is at its zenith on our borders. Hillary Clinton herself campaigned on carefully vetting refugees (though she favors increasing such entries). In a November 2015 national security speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said “So yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners.”
Finally, there is precedent for limited entry from particular countries going back to some of the earliest periods in this country. The earlier immigration laws include the 1875 Page Act which focused on Asian immigrants and those believes to be engaged in prostitution or considered convicts in their native countries. Then there was the infamous 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Then there were other measures limiting immigration from particular areas like the 1906 “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Japanese aliens) and the or the 1917 Immigration Act (“Asiatic Barred Zone”). In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed the “Quota Acts” limiting entry from disfavored countries. of nations from whom no further immigrants would be accepted. In every case, immigration policy continued to develop as a series of widening, discriminatory exclusions. It was not until 1965 that we broke from our long and troubling history is such discrimination. However, The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens:
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.
Even President Jimmy Carter used such authority. Executive Order 12172 involves an order to force 50,000 Iranian students living in the United States report to an immigration office and face possible deportation. Thousands were deported. Indeed, President Obama repeatedly claimed sweeping executive authority over such national security and immigration policies. As recently as 2016, the Obama Administration opposed courts even ruling on issues of executive power on immigration, insisting that “complex debates over immigration policy that the Constitution reserves to the political Branches of the National Government.” Democratic members supported those arguments, including many who filed in support of the executive power.
None of this means that I personally support this action. I do not. However, one’s personal views should not influence one’s constitutional analysis in such a case. There are grounds to challenge the order and they are not frivolous. However, the precedent supports President Trump. Here is the executive order:
“Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Following is the language of that order, as supplied by the White House.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
It was a great mistake to repeal the Immigration Act (Johnson-Reed) of nineteen hundred-and -twenty-four, because it in large measure restored racial and cultural homogeneity in this country, after a period of disruptive immigration. Without it, we should have come sooner to the dog’s breakfast of a population that exists to-day.
A country can not be called a country without a distinct culture.
What is the culture of the United States. We have two items to point at. The teachings of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and our use of representative democratic principles. The other is the survival of this system of self government even under the most concentrated, lengthy and rigid assault tje worst of the world has to offer. Keep that in mind the rest will fall into place and remember to refuse false and ever changing definitions. PC is just another word for Political Crap.
Are only citizens protected under our Constitution? Are non citizens not afforded any Constitutional rights?
“Within U.S. territory, non-citizens have rights because of the 14th Amendment, which declares “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.””
Which means squat if a law exists which allows them to be deprived of either life, liberty, or property.
Here, there is a law which permits the President to deny a class of individuals, so therefore what Trump is doing is via a LAW.
The court may interpret what the law means. My goodness, but to cite the 14th Amendment without context is very misleading. Criminals are executed (deprived of life) via the LAW. Millions are locked up in prison (deprived of liberty) via the LAW. People are charged fees and fines and taxes (deprived of property) via the LAW.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Due Process. Equal Protection.
OK, Einstein, tell some goober in China that he has the full protection of the 14th Amendment. Tell him that he can protest the Chinese government under the provisions of the First Amendment.
Will you feel at all guilty when the commies shoot him???
You are just spewing out words and terms without any idea what you are talking about.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
By then it won’t matter as the whole exercise in fixing the mess will be over. but Darren is correct even under Obama who would just ignore it it couldn’t be found unconstitutional and possibly will be strenthened. There may be some fine tuning but that’s what we want to get back on the right track and away from the leavings of the regressive extremists. All and all it’s good exercise one every part of the government and the citizens relearning their role should be subjected to even if they have to manufacture some point of conflict.
We also allow babies to be killed in the womb. So much for the life part.
So before they come they have no rights. It is a PRIVILEGE to come to USA.
The exception is in criminal or tort trials they may be granted the same civil rights as the rest of us and that often happens out of sheer politeness if nothing else. But they have no actual rights. And with replacement of due process and probable cause by something called ‘suspicion of’ and that with no restrictions to exclude citizens I’m not sure we have those rights. Like TSA is the price you pay for losing the war against terrorism. That happened when citizens allowed governent to strip them of their rights.
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw
Trump’s promise to prioritize Christian over Muslim refugees when the 90-day ban lifts violates the Religion Clauses of our First Amendment.
Since the refugees, whether Christian or Muslim, are not citizens of the US, are not residents of the US, and are not even in the US, how do any restrictions on their entry into the US violate any part of the First Amendment?
violates the Religion Clauses of our First Amendmen
Between your ears only.
What it does is reverses the damage caused by the refusal of the Obama regime to let those most threatened with genocide in and in a ratio of 1,000 to 1 allowed Muslims immediate access. Those aren’t
Methodists from Topeka those are Christian Arabs along with a number of other religious minority banned by Kerry and Company. Political Bigotry thy name is Obama.
We’re in the Twilight Zone.
As for the protesters: many never voted.
The stay won’t last. The detainees won’t stay. I think Trump should expand the Order to include more countries. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are two that need to be added.
It served a good purpose. The courts are a check on the other branches of government except the Fourth Branch. Everything worked the way it was supposed to work and that’s the whole point of going back to a Constitutonal Government based on principles of representative democracy instead of what we just got rid of and good riddance. The use of such methods was after all is the only legacy Obama had – ignoring the law and the oath of office. So it’s good to have these things happen to get the nation back on the correct track and away from version pushed by the regressive secular extremists.
I hope it happens again and again to serve the same purpose. Citizens Over Government and Government as their temporary employees.
Pakistan for sure, except it would mess up our using their air space. Saudi Arabia is an ally. We have bases there. We can use their air space. I would rather our new Secretary of State had face to face talks about their country finding terrorists.
I’m not a lawyer, but David Bier makes the case that Trump is in violation of the 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=1
One would have to look at the Immigration Acts since then to get a clue on what part of the 1965 Act was still valid…..
Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986)
American Homecoming Act (1989)
Immigration Act 1990
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) (1996)
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1997)
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) (1998)
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) (2000)
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) (2000)
H-1B Visa Reform Act (2004) REAL ID Act (2005)
Secure Fence Act (2006)
there have been ten since 1986 and regardless of title they all must be searched to see what embedded or earmarked additions were added in or not added in.
Without that information the 1965 Act is speculation and wishful thinking until checked by competent legal minds.
What is a David Bier?
One of those all of a sudden with a court order to back it up made Cruz and ME both eligble to be President he was a Canuck and I was a Limey.or Norske origin.
That’s nice, but the 1965 act (the one that Trump didn’t cite) has prevalence over the language of the 1952 act (the one that Trump did cite). Trump did not reference any of your above list to defend his decision. I think Patterico makes an even better case, and it means that Trump needs Congressional approval to discriminate based on national origin.
http://patterico.com/2017/01/29/responding-to-andrew-mccarthy-on-the-legality-of-trumps-immigration-order/
So would you — if you lead the opposition party.
Possibly? Yes. But probably? No. It has to be researched trhough at least ten subsequent immigration acts that followed and checked for the hidden litle embedded extras that aren’t mentioned in the titles. Cherry picking something that far out of date is probably a fools errand but the easy answer is just go look at the latest version or ask Wikpedia or one of the legal resources. How much of the 1965 act is still valid? I stepped in on this because it’s test time on my other project so pay attention to Mespo’s answer.
Stay granted. So much for the professor’s legal advice.
But did not overturn the rest of the Executive Order. Which is still in force. So much for Yasmine’s ill informed comment. I thought you left in a huffy puffy fit of something
That’s because the final issues will be decided end of February. IT’s a temporary stay pending the final decision.
He’s been wrong more than he’s been right the last few years.
True but he still incites a good conversation and I wonder if it isn’t done on purpose.
Who?
I think Trump was within his rights as President.
That executive order is as constitutional as the national anthem on the Fourth of July but some damn fool federal judge will give em a stay to let the Left muster their army of orcs.
So do I but the Judge limited it to just a few and left the rest alone as is. In the meantime Immigration had time to check them out and hopefully will not put them on the no fly list as did the OBama Regime.
Something deeply self-loathing about people not wanting to protect themselves and their countrymen from a clear and present danger. A thanatos moment from the Left that leaves the rest of us bewildered.
Astonishingly naive!
Ouch. The Court Stayed Trumps Executive Order to ban refugees, says the ACLU.
The way you do it si as follows: since your statement is partially true but substantiually false.”
“Carlos Barria | Reuters
This is breaking news please check back for updates.
A federal judge granted an emergency stay Saturday to temporarily allow people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. to stay in the country, following chaos and detentions after President Donald Trump’s executive order related to immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The American Civil Liberties Union estimates it will affect between 100 and 200 people detained at or in transit to U.S. airports. It will not, however, stay the president’s entire order.”
The bulk of the Executive Order was left untouched by the court.
Hey I had to go to a foreign news source to get the whole story!
You could have just read my comment at 9:38 pm.
Sorry I missed that one credit goes where it’s due. I didnt read the announcement till Granny posted it.
Here is a link and info on the contention of the ACLU: “This case challenges President Trump’s Muslim ban. The lead plaintiffs have been detained by the U.S. government and threatened with deportation even though they have valid visas to enter the United States. One plaintiff, Hameed Darweesh, an Iraqi husband and father of three, worked for the U.S. military and his life was in danger in Iraq due to that relationship. The other plaintiff’s wife and son were threatened because of their perceived ties to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained both men in JFK Airport in New York as they entered the country.
Their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth
Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights, and is ultra vires the immigration statutes. Their detention is part of a widespread pattern applied to many refugees and other foreign-born visitors and immigrants arriving in the United States since the executive order was issued on January 27, 2017.
Counsel for plaintiffs are the American Civil Liberties Union, the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, the National Immigration Law Center, Yale Law School’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization and the firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.”
Duuuhhh If theyaren’t citizens they have no Fifth Amendment rights;. but then under the Patriot Act neither do you or me or any of us. So how much are the shysters going to cost the taxpayers for this setup deal.
Michael,,
Dual citizenship is involved.
I share your distrust of the ACLU. The thing is, a legal argument should be considered on its merits. It really doesn’t matter who comes up with the argument. If it has merit, though Satan himself authored the opinion, we are obliged, as honest brokers concerning this situation, to listen to the merits of the argument. Anything less is a shameful act on our part and unworthy of our own citizenship.
To continue. That’s IF they come up with an argument. But the responsibilty to present the first argument with facts, assertions, references etc. is the one who makes the assertion. If for example they refuse to do so and say something like Go Look It Up. There is no discussion the premise fails and that’s the end of it. Just walk away and ignore them.
About Dual Citizenship. I holdmore than one.That was made legal by the US Government some time ago. However only one is primary and is where allegiance come into play and that can be only to one country..
My Certificate of Citizenship I acquired at age 23 after serving in the Army and voting etc. So… here comes the new piece of paper. and bigger than anything it said, Natural Citizen From Birth. Along comes one of those citizenship and immigration acts and bingo i could run for President.By then I had no intention to do such a foolish thing but took the various Oaths of Citizeship and Office seriously.
I still have passports from the other countries but it’s more an honorary thing any more. Another one is out of date and the country no longer exists. BUT the local consulate state yes they are all valid and lega under present law and gave a class to his staff usingi me as the guinea pig Next time I went in they called me Mr. President and started laughing.
End of story. but I keep them —Just in case. You never know whose going to be next but if it’s Hillary I’m moving to Malta.
I said that because the made the top five list for expats. Austria, Mexico, Malta, Ecuador and New Zealand. good information ….just in case.
Michael Aarethun January 28, 2017 at 9:05 pm –
Courts have ruled that even NON-citizens have Second Amendment Rights:
A.T.F. Eases Rules on Gun Sales to Noncitizens – The New York Times
Dec 22, 2011 – The Justice Department concluded that the Gun Control Act does not … “Once the regulations have been revised, both U.S. citizens and aliens …
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/us/atf-eases-rules-on-gun-sales-to-noncitizens.html
Please cite the relevant ruling(s) that support your claim they have no Fifth Amendment Rights.
They have no direct constitutional rights but they have as you indicated rights granted by a Judge here and a Judge there but the two biggest reasons are common politeness and we like to demonstrate our system is superior to others.
But the telling argument is -depends on the charge. – Like all of us all US Citizens and others if the charge of suspicion of terrorism or suspicion of supporting terrorism is lodged there are no rights. For anyone. That law failed to exclude citizens for starters. You’ll find it in the Patriot Act and the latest to sign off on an extension and additions was on 31 Dec 15 Mr. Obama.
I do apologize it was an intentional trick question or rather statement..
Normally you are correct but there is that completely legal snake in the grass waiting to strike. Can never happen here?
Example. Lynch’s authorization to spread information gathered without a warrant by eavesdropping to others beyond intelligence and law enforcement officials. I truly hope that she lives up to her last name when the investigations are over.
All it takes is a DHS agent to say, “arresting you under suspicion of….terrorism.” No proof needed, no probable cause, none of that and no civil rights and it doesnt’ exclude citizens.
But then neither did the eavesdropping policy,
Let’s get beyond our do-good philosophy. There are people who want to kill you because your are white or American. I think a few hours to verify status of people who shouldn’t have been on a plane coming here is not the. End of the world.
ACLU got a stay on the executive order. 🙂
How much did that cost Comrade Soros?
You people are obsessed with George Soros. 🙂 Many people have “woke” .from their complacency. Actually I am shocked at the volumes of people who have suddenly become involved
Woke from their complacency? Wakened is the proper world. Anyway, I would rather hold up some people for a while than find out later they had killed lots of people. Wouldn’t you?
Just a “pipeline” stay. The rest of the potential rabble are still at bay.
If this is correct (per the ACLU) this is clearly illegal: “Tellingly, Trump’s executive order authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to admit refugees on a “case-by-case” basis, for people of a minority religion in their home countries. In effect, Trump has barred Muslims from entering the United States, while favoring the entry of Christians.”
That would be the ACLU that George Soros funds heavily. The ones that provide his bought and paid for pet Judges etc. Sorry along with moveon.org and BLM you picked the wrong bunch to impress this reader.
BUT you did say (IF this is correct) So big points for that. NOW let’s look at the other side of the coin. The previous president used the same route to bring in 50,000 or so muslims and only 55 that we can verify Christiansk, Jews, Bahai’s Yazidis and a few other minorities being genocided not to mention the Kurds.
The exact same way. SO hmmmmm where was the ACLU then? Where? Awaiting orders from George Soros. ACLU can kiss my red,white, and blue Constitutinal Ass they have nothing to do with civil liberties and that includes not blocking replacing ‘probable cause’ with ‘suspicion of.’
Actually Trump has approved the entry of non-Muslims who were barred by the Obama Administration. Especially where Syria was concerned. But a non citizen with a legal residence permit, visa, or green card is what the Judge already ruled on. And was one of the point s that got cleared up. Those two who were detained were probably already on the way home before Soros’s pet dogs sent their billing as that is what immigration was doing.
Still it’s helpful that these practical tests are run considering the mess Side Deal Kerry made and the question of banning by reason of relgion now lays where it belongs….at the door of Obama and Kerryi.
50 plus thousand muslims allowed in and 55 non muslims and Kurds.allowed in is not a supportable stance never mind the agencies and relief efforts that filed constant complaints for Kerry’s policy.
.
Professor Turley. What is the legal status of legal immigrants who are legal residents of the USA but are not yet US citizens?
Professor, I just listened to you on CNN. While I get what you say about courts deferring to the president on immigration, his ban extends to American citizens who hold dual citizenship in one of those countries on the ban list. He can ban US citizens? That’s legal?
DHD,
That is a very important competent of the situation. I”m glad you brought this up. People are being handcuffed at the border and asked how they feel about Trump. If they give the “right” answers, they may be allowed in–selective enforcement based on political profession of loving a certain president. This is just evil.
I don’t believe you.
Sometimes you just gotta laugh….
You don’t need to believe. This isn’t a religion. Go look it up!
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-canada-idUSKBN1542UD There are several news accounts about this.
What got them was this word.
ve·he·ment·ly
ˈvēəməntlē/
adverb
adverb: vehemently
in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling.
“he vehemently denied any suggestion of improper conduct”
Had they said we’re interested in seeing a US inauguration and let it go at that …. or if they had a border crossing card which is something we use on both southern and northern borders…. but with only a passport it showed they weren’t regulars. Those people have no sense of humor and are only a cut above TSA standards.
But as the saying goes ‘early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Pull your head out of your senile rear end! If they were coming to Trump’s inauguration, then that means that Trump was NOT THE PRESIDENT YET, and had zippo power to do any such thing!
Come on, are you so completely partisan that you are incapable of using your brain to do any thinking at all??? If true, you should be asking why Obama turned them away.
Sheeeesh. The stupid, it burns!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Read it and weep.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-citizens-with-dual-nationality-state-department-2017-01-28
You can’t make this stuff up.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316692-trumps-visa-ban-also-applies-to-dual-citizens-report
Insane, incompetent and cruel.
As usual he cherry picked what he wanted to read. The key part is citizen of or dual citizen of th ecountries involved such as an Iraqui who also holds British Passport.. Now here’s the difference.
My Passport and the little bitty border crossing card means I’ve already been vetted. Even so I never leave Mexico without obtaining a new Mexican Visa. Simple procedure. Then too my Certificate of Citizenship states natural Citizen since date of birth. I’m not traveling on nor carrying the other two. But the information is in the little bitty gold chip For most like me they will have the same setup.
So that procedure doesn’t matter and is immaterial to me and others and doesn’t apply.
If Bobby Benson of the B-B spent as much time getting the facts straight on his original claims instead of ducking and quacking he would be believable – but he didn’t and he isn’t.
A similar situation is citizens of Seychelles and Mauritius who hold British passports as well. but those countries are not on the list. Now one from Zimbabwe under it’s former name might raise an eyebrow as a collectors item. It would be invalid, out of date and that country doesn’t exist anymore.
The Sun used to never set on the British Empire such situations are very common with descendants of the Empire.
Worst comes to worst. This could have been the last administration for example. Refused entry for 90 days big deal the wait time is 90 days I’ll see you in 180. or 360. But even entering on a drivers license because the passport was lost or stolen is no big deal IF you have some kind of ID with that little bitty gold chip.
Objectivism wins over mysticism every time – and takes less effort..
Asked at the border about Trump. You believe that?
I think it is illegal. It is based on Trump’s business dealings, not terrorism or any rational reason at all. I don’t believe a president may legally engage in “pay to play”. That was a problem for Clinton and it certainly not legal for Trump to engage in this behavior.
I personally am disgusted by his actions. “In the 40 years to 2015, not a single American was killed on US soil by citizens from any of the seven countries targeted – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – according to research by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.
But the same research shows that in the same period nearly 3000 Americans were killed by citizens of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Turkey — most victims of the September 11 attacks.
And oops, wouldn’t you know it, Trump has multimillion-dollar business operations in all those countries.”
http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-in-which-he-has-business-ties-20170128-gu0ptl.html
You know, and prior to 12/7/41 not one Japanese dive bomber ever hit ships at Pearl Harbor even though they terrorized the rest of the Pacific. Guess that could never happen.
I wish someone who has lost a loved one at Orlando, San Bernardino, Brussels, Paris could explain how it feels to see people obliterate bodies with shotguns or having heads cut off. History is fool of horrible people who make life difficult for innocents. Pictures should be shown. Listen to women used as sex slaves, but managed to escape.
I believe these protests are fumed by organizations. You don’t happen to be at an airport with materials to make signs, etc.
115th Congress H.Res.XX
1st Session
Impeaching Donald Jon Trump Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
_______________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January __, 2017
Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
________________________________________________
A RESOLUTION
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations” against the Constitution since January 27th, 2017. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; by Instituting Executive Order on Immigration; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution’s Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous “Cointelpro” Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE II
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the to support belligerent acts against Iran, and other citizens of muslim faith. In all of this Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE 111
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iran by employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE 1V
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iran in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
A good point I just saw on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/MissLizzyNJ/status/825413638441824256
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Professor Turley,
Perhaps you should look at today’s Editorial page of The New York Times, which described this order as a “… bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy.”
It goes on: “That the order, breathtaking in scope and inflammatory in tone, was issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day spoke of the president’s callousness and indifference to history, to America’s deepest lessons about its own values.
The order lacks any logic. It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11 as a rationale, while exempting the countries of origin of all the hijackers who carried out that plot and also, perhaps not coincidentally, several countries where the Trump family does business. The document does not explicitly mention any religion, yet it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard by excluding Muslims while giving government officials the discretion to admit people of other faiths.”
I re-order the wording in that last sentence to read: The document does not explicitly mention any religion, [but] by excluding Muslims while giving government officials the discretion to admit people of other faiths, … it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard.
And just today, renowned terrorism expert Malcolm Nance told us that while we now have ISIL on the run, this order will serve as a recruiting poster for even more ISIL-connected terrorists around the world.
Mr. Nance also reminds us that this order does not ban Muslims from any nation, such as Saudi Arabia, in which Mr. Trump has business interests. (And, which incidentally, provided 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.)
Stuart Selkin, MD, JD
I was formerly a military medical officer in Vietnam, during the war. And I’m eternally grateful to Malcolm Nance’s influence in the SERE program that, during my special training, helped to keep me safe.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/825496558976262145
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Gaawd, I wish our leaders could do something without fourteen parasites (lawyers) questioning its constitutionality. I maintain our constitution grants freedom of religion, but it is not an absolute guarantee that the tenets of every proclaimed religion are legal. Some are unbearably cruel, such as the female genital mutilation widely practiced in Indonesia and Malaysia, and It hasn’t been so long ago that suttee, the practice of burning the wife to death with the corpse of her husband, was practiced legally in India, The ancient Polynesians killed and buried a slave beneath corner posts of shelters.
Ancient Incas sent selective children to die for their gods, and the Aztecs murdered captives as blood sacrifices. No Muslim may be killed for killing an unbeliever under Koranic law.
All these things were exercises in religious freedom taken to the point of absurdity. What in hell ever happened to common sense?
Common sense is usually neither common nor sensible. The other names for it are conventional wisdom and urban myths.
Though the “Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality”, the determination of legality may require merit considerations. In Congress’s “commerce clause” cases we have seen the SCOTUS to consider merits of a case. A structural argument of discrimination might require so.
Well, citizenship laws are all about discrimination. It is an inherent part of them. The citizens of one country discriminate against the citizens of other countries, or in effect, their national origin. That is why a Russian can’t just pop into the U.S, or China, or Mexico, or France and demand to live there as a citizen.
Here, our laws grant the President the right to make decisions such as this. Discrimination is a non-starter for non-citizens.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Learn the difference between discrimination and discriminating. and discriminate in all it’s forms. I discriminate routinely against PepsiCola because I have a discriminating taste in beverages as one example. I love Mexican Food but I discriminate against menudo. i am eclectic in myh choice of music but discriminate against that which is not music meaming for the optical senses in favor of music for the aural or audio sense. Those are personal choices.
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Who the hell cares what the New York Times thinks. They are owned by a Mexican Billionaire too
Carlos Slim? No wonder! Can’t wait to see the outcome of the deal Slim, Pena and Trump have made. As long as it helps my friends down here AND makes the US media look more stupdid than they are. If tht’s possible. I like it when they bite on the tweets and get jerked around and then comeback likle a dogfish in florida and do it again…and again….and again…
What won’t ISIL use as a recruiting tool? If there were no ban on immigration, they would use this as a way to work their way into our country. And the New York Times is a discredited source. Unfortunately, when a source has been exposed as biased and in collusion with certain partisan factions, they lose their authority, even if they happen to be right on occasion.
The New York Times is a very reliable indicator of what American policy should be. If they are for a given policy, then the correct action is to oppose that policy. If they are against any given policy, then the correct action is to go forward strongly with the policy. The reason the New York Times is so reliable in this way is that it has been consistently run by leftist Anti-American presstitutes serving the Global New World Order, which wants to destroy the U.S. as a nation both within and without.