Court knows threat better than President

[DriveInDriveOut]

You can call it creative all you want. Read the law.

which law?

 

[JL 0513]

which law?

Not sure how many times it has to be pointed out...

“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.”

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Not sure how many times it has to be pointed out...

“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.”

Right, that's the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Here's a little ditty from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:
"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."


Hence why I asked which law. Seems to me the legality of the executive order is certainly in question, hence the courts' involvement.

 

[JL 0513]

Right, that's the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Here's a little ditty from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:
"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."


Hence why I asked which law. Seems to me the legality of the executive order is certainly in question, hence the courts' involvement.

That's a very different statute regarding immigration in general. Not in respect to national security concerns. Concerns that no court even has access to be aware of which is why it's left to the President. The judiciary has no business questioning anything about national security orders. If we need to go to war, do we have a vote on the Supreme Court to make sure the qualifications are met?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

That's a very different statute regarding immigration in general. Not in respect to national security concerns. Concerns that no court even has access to be aware of which is why it's left to the President.

Sure, but it clearly states no person can discriminate, and I'm mostly sure Trump is a person. The courts don't need access to national security matters to judge whether laws or executive orders are legal.

The judiciary has no business questioning anything about national security orders.

I strongly disagree.

If we need to go to war, do we have a vote on the Supreme Court to make sure the qualifications are met?

Sounds good to me.
The War Powers Resolution absolutely needs to be reviewed.

 

[JL 0513]

Sure, but it clearly states no person can discriminate, and I'm mostly sure Trump is a person. The courts don't need access to national security matters to judge whether laws or executive orders are legal.

I strongly disagree.

Sounds good to me.
The War Powers Resolution absolutely needs to be reviewed.

You're not getting it. When we are talking about pausing travel from war torn countries harboring tons of terrorists, it has nothing to do with discriminating. The statute you posted deals with general immigration where the President couldn't just ban ALL Muslims, for example, for the duration of his term just because they are Muslim. These 7 countries were ID'd by the Obama administration for reasons not known to anyone outside of the classified intel community. The general public as well as the courts can argue all day long about this but they have no idea what the threats are. So this order deals with security threats to our country not about who the President likes or dislikes.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The statute you posted deals with general immigration where the President couldn't just ban ALL Muslims, for example, for the duration of his term just because they are Muslim.

The statute clearly states a person cannot discriminate based on country of origin.

These 7 countries were ID'd by the Obama administration for reasons not known to anyone outside of the classified intel community.

Completely besides the point.

The general public as well as the courts can argue all day long about this but they have no idea what the threats are. So this order deals with security threats to our country not about who the President likes or dislikes.

You're correct it's not about who the president likes or dislikes, it's about the legality of the executive order, which is in question. Chill out and let the courts do their thing.

The judiciary has no business questioning anything about national security orders.

The general public as well as the courts can argue all day long about this but they have no idea what the threats are.

I find statements like these to be quite troubling. The courts absolutely are in the business of deciding the legality and constitutionality of national security orders.

Using your logic if Trump decided it's in the interest of national security to seize your property or quarter troops in your home, then the court has no business telling him he can't because he did it because of national security information they don't have.

 

[JL 0513]

The statute clearly states a person cannot discriminate based on country of origin.

You're repeating the same thing. I'm trying to get through to you saying there are two sides to immigration. When I say general immigration it means persons of all countries and all races and religions are to be eligible to migrate to the US through the legal process. This is SEPARATE from temporary holds on countries believed to threaten the interests of the US. Can't you see the very big difference?

Completely besides the point.

No it isn't. It has everything to do with the order.

You're correct it's not about who the president likes or dislikes, it's about the legality of the executive order, which is in question. Chill out and let the courts do their thing.

There's no question as to the legality of the travel ban. There's simply judges who believe there's something wrong with the process that was taken and placed a stay on it. Just their opinion. You'll notice that the law wasn't even brought up in front of the 9th Circus.

I find statements like these to be quite troubling. The courts absolutely are in the business of deciding the legality and constitutionality of national security orders.

Using your logic if Trump decided it's in the interest of national security to seize your property or quarter troops in your home, then the court has no business telling him he can't because he did it because of national security information they don't have.

No, because then you're talking about citizens rights. People from abroad do not possess our citizen rights. There is no right to come to America, period. The left seems to think people from Syria have American rights.

 

[Babagounj]

Ask an Attorney, February 9


Attorney Ken Rosenfeld is in the studio to talk with Mae and Simone about the latest legal cases in the media.

Rosenfeld says he is puzzled as to why the Trump Administration is even wasting their time in the circuit court. The government has a "secret" court that has authority to overrule the judge in this case. The court is known as the FISA Court and many have no idea that this court exists, Rosenfeld says. He says the court meets in secret and hears cases based on only the request/arguments of the government. In other words, Rosenfeld says, the ACLU would never get in the door.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

There's no question as to the legality of the travel ban.

Obviously there is a question or we wouldn't be talking about it.
You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. Given the circumstances I would categorize your statement as willful ignorance. Or are we calling that alternative facts now?

No, because then you're talking about citizens rights. People from abroad do not possess our citizen rights.The left seems to think people from Syria have American rights.

You made a broad statement that the Judiciary has no business deciding ANYTHING about national security concerns. Those are your own words. You seem to be walking back that statement now.

Either way, non-citizens do enjoy at least some constitutional rights (see Boumediene v. Bush). Whatever other constitutional rights they have would be for the courts to decide.

 

[JL 0513]

Ask an Attorney, February 9


Attorney Ken Rosenfeld is in the studio to talk with Mae and Simone about the latest legal cases in the media.

Rosenfeld says he is puzzled as to why the Trump Administration is even wasting their time in the circuit court. The government has a "secret" court that has authority to overrule the judge in this case. The court is known as the FISA Court and many have no idea that this court exists, Rosenfeld says. He says the court meets in secret and hears cases based on only the request/arguments of the government. In other words of Rosenfeld says, the ACLU would never get in the door.

Hell, Trump could easily just ignore the court order if he wanted to and it would be perfectly legit in this situation.

 

[JL 0513]

Obviously there is a question or we wouldn't be talking about it.
You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. Given the circumstances I would categorize your statement as willful ignorance. Or are we calling that alternative facts now?

Remember ONE federal judge issued the stay. If it were legitimate, hundreds would have.

You made a broad statement that the Judiciary has no business deciding ANYTHING about national security concerns. Those are your own words. You seem to be walking back that statement now.

Either way, non-citizens do enjoy at least some constitutional rights (see Boumediene v. Bush). Whatever other constitutional rights they have would be for the courts to decide.

In the context of the discussion, we're talking about foreign threats to our national security. I automatically typed "all". Obviously, I didn't mean threats from US citizens.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

In the context of the discussion, we're talking about foreign threats to our national security. I automatically typed "all". Obviously, I didn't mean threats from US citizens.

What you type is obvious what happens inside your head is not.
None the less the courts do have a place in deciding the legality of both domestic and foreign national security concerns. I already posted a link to an example of it exercising that right but here's two more:
Rasul v. Bush - Wikipedia
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia

 

[What The Hawk?]

Hell, Trump could easily just ignore the court order if he wanted to and it would be perfectly legit in this situation.

He should. He has every right to order this. But thanks to people like in Seattle, it's getting pushed back for no good reason.

 

[What The Hawk?]

The president is commander and chief and he should be respected as such. Take care of Americans before we take care of refugees. I'm sick of these people throwing tantrums because God forbid the president is doing something good for once. Obama did the same thing yet there was no backlash. Every little (good) thing Trump does is deemed as evil.

 

[wkmac]

Got curious with all this talk of refugees, especially from Syria, and wondered what the numbers were. In 2016' from Syria, 13,210 refugees were allowed in the US. What was the number in 2015? 1705 refugees in 2015'. The bulk for both years were muslim but a small number were also christian, even smaller were Yazidis. The way some people have been acting I thought it was in the millions.

Of the 19 - 9/11 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon. Contrary to popular myth, bin Laden was not the 9/11 mastermind but Pakistani born Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was.

The irony that none of the countries from which the 9/11 hijackers came from is on the ban list everyone is so worked up about nor was there ever any question to place them on such a list to start with. Looking at the list I see the names of nations that play a far more interesting geo-political/geo-economic role that involve motives that have nothing to do with people and their movements across borders. Those motives serve special self interests in Washington DC and not anything to do with real national defense. Thus the real purpose of this ban lay somewhere else other than the myths and stories we are told to justify it. Never forget the old adage about politicians, lies and moving lips!

 

[542thruNthru]

Actually, you're just whining because your side lost. Obviously, you don't understand our system of checks and balances, which isn't surprising. When decisions go your way, it's all OK.

Hehe I'm sorry when I read this I thought "SERIOUSLY you just wrote almost exactly what everyone has been saying about your whining about Trump winning the election!"

It just makes me laugh how much all these arguments are so a like.

Ok carry on.

 

[It will be fine]

That's a very different statute regarding immigration in general. Not in respect to national security concerns. Concerns that no court even has access to be aware of which is why it's left to the President. The judiciary has no business questioning anything about national security orders. If we need to go to war, do we have a vote on the Supreme Court to make sure the qualifications are met?

Declaration of war is to be made by congress not the executive.

 

[It will be fine]

Got curious with all this talk of refugees, especially from Syria, and wondered what the numbers were. In 2016' from Syria, 13,210 refugees were allowed in the US. What was the number in 2015? 1705 refugees in 2015'. The bulk for both years were muslim but a small number were also christian, even smaller were Yazidis. The way some people have been acting I thought it was in the millions.

Of the 19 - 9/11 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon. Contrary to popular myth, bin Laden was not the 9/11 mastermind but Pakistani born Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was.

The irony that none of the countries from which the 9/11 hijackers came from is on the ban list everyone is so worked up about nor was there ever any question to place them on such a list to start with. Looking at the list I see the names of nations that play a far more interesting geo-political/geo-economic role that involve motives that have nothing to do with people and their movements across borders. Those motives serve special self interests in Washington DC and not anything to do with real national defense. Thus the real purpose of this ban lay somewhere else other than the myths and stories we are told to justify it. Never forget the old adage about politicians, lies and moving lips!

The reason the 7 countries were on Obama's list for extreme vetting is because while they are war torn it is harder to verify the accuracy of documents. That's why it already takes years to go through the vetting process. The reason they are on Trumps list is for political cover so he can say Obama did it too.

 

[newfie]

The reason the 7 countries were on Obama's list for extreme vetting is because while they are war torn it is harder to verify the accuracy of documents. That's why it already takes years to go through the vetting process. The reason they are on Trumps list is for political cover so he can say Obama did it too.

not only Obama but congress also came up with that list of seven countries.
so we do a review of those seven countries and we find they do not have the means or relationship with our country to provide us with the proper vetting .
does a responsible president ignore the fact or does he take action. the point you make that it takes years to do the vetting does not answer the merits of the issue.
when that refugee comes to us from Syria what embassy in Syria provided us with a complete background work up of that person. where were the public officials that have known that person and can speak to that persons character and criminal background? They cant because the country is in total disarray. records destroyed. public officials dead or gone.

they cant its a war ravaged country without the infrastructure to speak to those questions.

now we know that ISIS has snuck in their people with refugees in Europe. we know that ISIS has publicly said they will do the same here.

Why are liberals so worried about letting immigrants into this country? there is only one reason . they think they can turn the majority into democratic votes .
This issue has always been about building up the democratic base . they have created a dependent base with other groups by making them dependent on government hand outs.
refugees and the illegal immigrants would also partake in government services and thus vote for people that would keep the checks coming.