trumps new muslim ban absolutely is 100% ILLEGAL

[Jaskalas]

I find it odd no one is discussing the law explicitly stating that the President can do this.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.​

 

[Esuni]

Sorry to prove the cult wrong http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...vel-ban-illegal-un-rights-chief-a7552991.html
You're still part of the UN

 

[Jaskalas]

Sorry to prove the cult wrong http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...vel-ban-illegal-un-rights-chief-a7552991.html
You're still part of the UN

Muslims are not barred from traveling. So the entire premise of their statements are... not true.

Ah, past the headline are more pointed statements.

Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein said: “Discrimination on nationality alone is forbidden under human rights law.

There remains a question of whether our laws state something similar. But I imagine the law I cited above... Trumps... the more general terms. To the SCOTUS we go?

 

[Esuni]

He is blocking anyone having partial nationality form these countries, including an atheist which I know.
He also did not mention muslim in his ban as this is effectively not a muslim ban but a ban based on nationality.
Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein said: “Discrimination on nationality alone is forbidden under human rights law.
“The US ban is also mean-spirited, and wastes resources needed for proper counter-terrorism.”

 

[shady28]

He is blocking anyone having partial nationality form these countries, including an atheist which I know.
He also did not mention muslim in his ban as this is effectively not a muslim ban but a ban based on nationality.
Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein said: “Discrimination on nationality alone is forbidden under human rights law.
“The US ban is also mean-spirited, and wastes resources needed for proper counter-terrorism.”

The UN is a joke. The only reason your quote/link gets any press time in MSM is because of MSMs hostility to Trump. See below for a small exerpt of "International Law" violations under Obama.

A United Nations investigation has so far identified 33 drone strikes around the world that have resulted in civilian casualties and may have violated international humanitarian law.
No, you can't go around kill civilians in another country.

At UN, Pakistan demands immediate cessation of illegal drone strikes
No, you can't go around conducting drone strikes on foreign soil.

A United Nations panel has decided that Julian Assange’s three-and-a-half years in the Ecuadorian embassy amount to “arbitrary detention”, leading his lawyers to call for the Swedish extradition request to be dropped immediately.
No, you can't arbitrarily detain someone.

 

[ivwshane]

I keep seeing links to dispute the claim, but none of them so far actually dispute anything.



Are you thinking that the only reason it stopped is because people left and could not do it? What do you think your article shows?

Yeah which is why refugee status was still granted to Iraqis during that time but at a much lower level. That's why, when they resumed operations they had a huge backlog to deal with.

 

[First]

Um... did you read your link?



Here is the link to that ABC article too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

And this.



I get that later on they are trying to say it was not a ban, but a hold up until they could build a better procedure, but that seems like semantics. I personally worry that this is not temporary, but you saying that its bullshit is not true. Napolitano was asked a direct question and answered, "yep". Your link does not support your claim.

Yeah again all due respect you didn't read the article carefully. My link fully supports my claim, you reading "Yep" to mean "Yep" we've stopped processing applications for Iraqi's is simply false, Napolatano specially says the following right after that:

Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”

So being reviewed means they're being vetted, just at a much slower pace. Notice later in the WaPo article it is stated there wasn't a single month Iraqi's weren't admitted to the U.S. in 2011, so it is obviously complete nonsense to say there was a 6 month hold knowing that was the case.

And again, WaPo concluded this was 3 Pinocchios. How do you square that circle kiddo? You can't of course, because there is no other way to view this issue.

 

[First]

Provide quotes and make your case.

Says the partisan that won't post quotes to make his case.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah which is why refugee status was still granted to Iraqis during that time but at a much lower level. That's why, when they resumed operations they had a huge backlog to deal with.

So it's different because Trump gave a window of how long this will last, but you think it will last forever? If the Trump ban is only temporary which is what is claimed, how is this different?

 

[jackstar7]

So it's different because Trump gave a window of how long this will last, but you think it will last forever? If the Trump ban is only temporary which is what is claimed, how is this different?

Nevermind.

 

[ivwshane]

Nevermind.

Seriously! He's frustratingly stupid!

 

[First]

So it's different because Trump gave a window of how long this will last, but you think it will last forever? If the Trump ban is only temporary which is what is claimed, how is this different?

lol wut

 

[HumblePie]

I don't agree with the ban at all that was placed by POTUS, but as far as legality is concerned it looks legal on the surface of it. I would like to believe there is a better way of going about trying to prevent potential terrorist threats from entering the US, but I don't have enough information to put forth any real alternative to what the POTUS has done with this ban.

At this point it is all conjecture as to the efficacy of the ban in preventing potential terrorist incursions into the US, but people are going to blow hard on their opinions on this one on either side of the issue.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't agree with the ban at all that was placed by POTUS, but as far as legality is concerned it looks legal on the surface of it. I would like to believe there is a better way of going about trying to prevent potential terrorist threats from entering the US, but I don't have enough information to put forth any real alternative to what the POTUS has done with this ban.

At this point it is all conjecture as to the efficacy of the ban in preventing potential terrorist incursions into the US, but people are going to blow hard on their opinions on this one on either side of the issue.

I'm going to take the word of the now-former AG who said it was not in line with the Constitution -- that thing Trump swore to uphold and protect.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Says the partisan that won't post quotes to make his case.

...says the partisan. He made the assertion, not me. And just why do you feel so compelled as to interject yourself into a discussion where someone expresses a personal opinion regarding an interview and my asking him to substantiate that opinion? Think about it and get back to me.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm going to take the word of the now-former AG who said it was not in line with the Constitution -- that thing Trump swore to uphold and protect.

People make those claims about many decisions which turn out wrong. The argument is the point of the legal system. Right now the argument for it being illegal is the base belief that the order stems directly from a religious only standpoint and is thus not in line with the first amendment. The problem is proving that.

Had the order stated no muslim refugees from anywhere, then that would certainly have been 100% illegal. But he instead banned all immigration/refugees from certain countries of those people who didn't already have any form of prior authorization to enter the US. On that point it is more of my opinion, and many other who are also legal experts, that is is legal. That argument as to the true legality is the intent of the order for it's origination.

It's kind of like the Voter ID law. If done wrong, with the wrong intent it is illegal. However, the right intent and execution make it legal per SCOTUS.

 

[Phynaz]

I'm going to take the word of the now-former AG who said it was not in line with the Constitution -- that thing Trump swore to uphold and protect.

Is she qualified to make this determination? Is she a federal judge?

Her jurisdiction is to enforce the law, and that's it.

Do you think your local police officers should start determining which laws they agree with and only enforce those?

 

[ElFenix]

People make those claims about many decisions which turn out wrong. The argument is the point of the legal system. Right now the argument for it being illegal is the base belief that the order stems directly from a religious only standpoint and is thus not in line with the first amendment. The problem is proving that.

Had the order stated no muslim refugees from anywhere, then that would certainly have been 100% illegal. But he instead banned all immigration/refugees from certain countries of those people who didn't already have any form of prior authorization to enter the US. On that point it is more of my opinion, and many other who are also legal experts, that is is legal. That argument as to the true legality is the intent of the order for it's origination.

It's kind of like the Voter ID law. If done wrong, with the wrong intent it is illegal. However, the right intent and execution make it legal per SCOTUS.

reince priebus couldn't even within the same interview figure out if it applied to greencard holders or not. first he said it didn't, then he said it did.

 

[Thebobo]

Are people calling this a muslim ban for the sake of hyperbole? Are thread titles allowed to be wrong in an inflammatory way now? How can anyone expect to converse if every sentence is designed to piss off the 'other side'?

Are you the guy getting titles changed? And no if leaders can call it a muslim ban so can we.

 

[HumblePie]

reince priebus couldn't even within the same interview figure out if it applied to greencard holders or not. first he said it didn't, then he said it did.

Just because he forgot a particular detail when asked doesn't change the what the order does. It did state prior authorization which includes current green card or h1b1 or any other form of legal authorization. The faux panic and outrage of people believing that if they are muslim and leave the states for any reason will prohibit them from returning that I keep hearing on the news is pure FUD in that regard. Don't get me wrong, Trump likes to spread FUD himself. Many of his claims about the media being against him the past are hilarious at best. However, in the regard to this executive order, the media is really going all out in spreading some bad fud themselves on the issue.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The act of issuing an executive order which orders government employees to violate the constitution may not be illegal per say.
Anybody who enforces this executive act would be guilty of comitting a crime.
I believe firing Sally Yates was illegal. I believe it it illegal to fire somebody for refusing to break the law.

 

[ElFenix]

Just because he forgot a particular detail when asked doesn't change the what the order does. It did state prior authorization which includes current green card or h1b1 or any other form of legal authorization. The faux panic and outrage of people believing that if they are muslim and leave the states for any reason will prohibit them from returning that I keep hearing on the news is pure FUD in that regard. Don't get me wrong, Trump likes to spread FUD himself. Many of his claims about the media being against him the past are hilarious at best. However, in the regard to this executive order, the media is really going all out in spreading some bad fud themselves on the issue.

here's the operative portion of the order:

(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).

greencard holders have "immigrant" status. so yes, greencard holders ARE caught up in this. the only prior visas still good are the diplomatic ones listed.

here's the out:

(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.

but just because we "may, on a case by case basis" issue "immigration benefits" (which includes coming into the country) to greencard holders, doesn't mean they're not swept up or not covered by this.

 

[fskimospy]

Just because he forgot a particular detail when asked doesn't change the what the order does. It did state prior authorization which includes current green card or h1b1 or any other form of legal authorization. The faux panic and outrage of people believing that if they are muslim and leave the states for any reason will prohibit them from returning that I keep hearing on the news is pure FUD in that regard. Don't get me wrong, Trump likes to spread FUD himself. Many of his claims about the media being against him the past are hilarious at best. However, in the regard to this executive order, the media is really going all out in spreading some bad fud themselves on the issue.

The White House issued explicit guidance to DHS that this order covered green card holders, only to walk that back later. How on earth is reporting what the White House itself said FUD? You appear to have gotten some bad information somewhere.

 

[Atreus21]

What part of my thread title was inaccurate?

Trump hasn't banned muslims.

 

[brycejones]

Trump hasn't banned muslims.

Oh look another one who can't read or follow a conversation where did I say Muslim ban?