Trump's Travel Ban is Constitutional

The president’s authority to declare suspensions on aliens can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Notice the verbiage: when the PRESIDENT FINDS. As HE MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE. Very simple. Never repealed.

Congress has greater power than the courts. The law is active, and gives unfettered power to the president. The judges are wrong, and the Supreme Court will find them wrong. Then they should all lose their jobs.

More of interest:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/t...immigration-is-both-legal-and-constitutional/
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...gration-law-experts-from-both-sides-weigh-in/

 

As far as I've heard, the Hawaii argument was a 1st amendment one relying upon the following assumptions: 1. The ban is still intended as a "muslim ban" even if they deny it to try to circumvent the constitution. 2. Banning immigration based upon religion violates the establishment clause.

I suspect it would be a 4:4 decision at this point, though sometimes conservative judges make non-partisan judgements.

As far as actual security is concerned, the ban does not help. This fact, along with Trump's own statements about wanting a muslim ban, make it far from a slam dunk for conservatives.

 

And of course the ban does not apply to Saudi nationals, despite the fact that 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi. I wonder if this is why...

And guess what OP...this ^^^^^^ from a POTUS is NOT Constitutional.

 

If the EO does not ban Muslims, then it does not ban Muslims, not matter what this can't-read judge says. 2, restricting immigration based on religion does not violate the establishment: the government is not establishing a state religion nor is it keeping the potential immigrant from exercising his. Besides, a non citizen not in this country has no rights under the constitution.

Trump never said he wanted to ban Muslims.

 

1965 Immigration Act says travel/immigration Visas cannot be limited based on nationality or religion.

 

no specific group of people are being targeted, it's a blanket ban on everyone in the region

 

The judge has no power to surmise. His job is to look at the letter of the law, which he failed to do and so should be gaveled upside the head and thrown off the bench.

Put on your thinking cap and follow: It can't be a "Muslim ban" if it doesn't ban ALL muslims, can it. Are you calling it a 1/10 muslim ban?

Where does it state anything about religion? You drank kool-aid.

Now learn: there is a thing called "risk assessment". It is used extensively both in private business and in government as a criteria for decision-making. We are saying we will only accept travelers from countries who maintain an acceptable standard of citizen identification. In this case, countries of origin who have fairly reliable vetting and knowledge of their citizens are much safer than countries who pay no attention to the people in their borders and the activities those people are involved in. Hence - Saudi Arabia, whose nationals bombed the WTC is NOT on the list because they meet standards of risk management. The countries that are on this list are known, even by previous administrations, to have low or non-existent standards.

The list is comprised of countries with low or no standards with regards to identifying the people in their country, and recognizing the activities that are being carried on in their country.

 

And you drank the kool-aid too. The list is comprised of countries with low or no standards with regards to identifying the people in their country, and recognizing the activities that are being carried on in their country. And before you go making a class war out of it, see to it that your cheapo Dem leaders pay their fair share of taxes.

 

You conveniently ignored my point.

 

All who are banned are Muslims. Just because it doesn't ban EVERY Muslim does not mean it is not religiously based.

And that's what two courts have held

 

Congress makes immigration law, not the President.

so says the US Constitution.

 

Judges impose their interpretation of the law, with the supreme law being the Constitution. The SCOTUS have the final say on what can be inferred from the Constitution, while judges below them are expected to follow precedents set by SCOTUS, and otherwise apply their own understanding of the law provided it is not in violation of the most recent precedent.

Your argument of requiring 100% is like saying that a company isn't racist if it hires one black person, and yet turns all of the others away without consideration because they're black. What makes it a muslim ban is that these countries are on the list because they are muslim. Some countries that are muslim were not included on the list due to other factors, most likely business interests in the case of Saudi Arabia, and most likely security interests in the case of Iraq.

They did not include religious language in the revised version because including that language would make it more vulnerable to legal challenge. These countries have NOT been the ones responsible for almost all of the terrorism against America. Are you being serious though? Does anybody really think this isn't directed at muslims? Here's what Trump has had to say about it:

At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally

These statements are being used against Trump today, because they give us insight into what he's trying to do.

I know that's the way the administration has tried to spin it. But considering the fact that these countries have not contributed significantly to terrorism in America, that we already had extreme vetting in place, and that the only reports the DHS has had have been against the utility of the travel ban, I would say that there appears to be no factual basis for this ban and it really is just based upon anti-muslim sentiments by Trump. Particularly since he had tried to include pro-Christian measures in the first ban.

 

You did not make a point.
You displayed a twisted notion that a person would be fine with WTC bombings for money.

 

"(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27)"

section 101(a)(27) of that very same law

"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"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

 

The fact remains that Trump is heavily involved with business concerns with Saudis and has not banned Muslims from Saudi from entering the USA despite the fact that fifteen of the nineteen 911 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Which part of that is not factual in your world? I made a very clear point which is on topic with this thread and you are attempting to convolute the subject and take it off topic. I wonder why...

 

This is getting more and more like Nixon, part 2. Everything except the executive branch is screwed up... "National Security " was the excuse for Nixon's abuse of power, and the current so-called president is following in the other mentally disturbed president's footsteps.
Big difference was that Nixon was really smart - no morals at all, and paranoid, but smart. I have not heard anyone accuse the current so-called president of being smart.

 

1. Judges MAY NOT IMPOSE THEIR PERSONAL OPINION OF THE LAW. They are not to surmise. The three constitutional powers are not equal, and a careful reading of the Constitution will reveal that Congress is more powerful than the other two branches. Only Congress can make laws, and can do so with or without the president's consent. Congress can remove a president or a Supreme Court justice. SCOTUS is not as powerful as congress. Study up. These little 9th Circus judges are running kangaroo courts -- blatantly disregarding recognized standards of law or justice. We will all dance with joy when Congress removes the judges. The law, as written by Congress, clearly gives the President power to ban any he deems a threat to this country. It is the President's role as protector and defender.

2. Your logic is faulty. It would like you accusing a company that is comprised 50% of black employees of racism if it terminates one lazy incompetent employee who stole from his coworkers - and happened to be black.

3. They didn't include religious language in the first one either. BTW, where were you when Obama, in 2015, passed the Terrorist Travel Protection Act https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr158/BILLS-114hr158rds.pdf which singled out barring entry to those traveling from Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern. Oh, your handlers didn't tell you about that?

4. If your newly made-up rule is that what Trump said during campaigning is going to be held up forever as Bible -- then you Dems have just sunk your own ship. Because by the same rule, Dems cannot ever run for president or congress because the whole world has insight into what they are trying to do as they all have repeated the famous "mantra of hate" directed towards 50% of American citizens. You know the one by heart.... altogether now: sexist racist homophobic xenophobic Islamophobic.... You don't get to say that no one meant it -- we all have insight into the bigotry of the Left. Anyone to whom those words can be attributed is forever politically dead and will be thrown out by SCOTUS. According to your new rules.

5. I've already explained to you that these countries are banned due to their sloppy and ineffectual security and useless system of identification of persons within their borders. They were a concern in the Obama administration, and when I can locate the video clips of a host of political leaders going back through the democratic administrations, I will post it for you.

 

You sit and spin on that one....

 

Unless...
The President deems it necessary to protect and defend the United States. That is his first and foremost job.

 

Well, it certainly wouldn't help as much now, after all the delays.

 

What is most scary to me is to see the quality of judges that were appointed under Obama. They have no respect for the rule of law; only for the sententious judgments going on inside their own heads. I am beginning to seriously question if all of them have the logical skills necessary to enforce law properly and accurately.

 

Some factual excerpts for the low information Trump supporter...

 

Apparently the courts thus far haven't agreed with the President.

 

The justices can be removed by congress, and the Kangaroo courts can be shut down.

 

The question is then; will they be removed by congress? I don't think it's that easy to simply remove them because you don't agree with their decisions. Better to allow them to finish out their terms of office and appoint new judges who are impartial.