Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[Griever]

(02-03-2017, 08:47 AM)djam Wrote: I'm sorry but if thats the best you can do, I feel bad for you lol. Wow

lucie is that you?

[GMDino]

Welp.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/02/03/u-s-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-travel-ban-nationwide/

Quote:President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries was blocked by a federal judge who imposed a nationwide hold on the executive order that had sparked protests across the country.

It wasn’t immediately clear what happens next for people who had waited years to receive visas to come to America, however an internal email circulated among Homeland Security officials told employees to comply with the ruling immediately. About 60,000 people from the affected countries had their visas cancelled by the State Department.

The judge’s order was a victory for Washington and Minnesota, which had challenged Trump’s directive. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order, ruling the states had standing and said they showed their case was likely to succeed.

“The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury,” Robart said.

Trump’s order had caused widespread confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer released a statement late Friday saying the government “will file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate.” Soon after, a revised statement was sent out that removed the word “outrageous.”

“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” the statement said.
[/url]

Quote:

 Follow
CBS News 

@CBSNews
MORE: Federal judge in Seattle halts travel ban nationwide; "the Washington [AG] believes this makes it as if the order was never signed."
8:17 PM - 3 Feb 2017

Washington became the first state to sue over the order that temporarily bans travel for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and suspends the U.S. refugee program globally.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the travel ban significantly harms residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the lawsuit two days later.

After the ruling, Ferguson said people from the affected countries can now apply for entry to the U.S.

“Judge Robart’s decision, effective immediately … puts a halt to President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful executive order,” Ferguson said. “The law is a powerful thing — it has the ability to hold everybody accountable to it, and that includes the president of the United States.”

Quote:

 Follow
CBS News 

@CBSNews
Washington State AG: "The law is a powerful thing. It has the ability to hold everyone accountable to it, and that includes the president."
8:24 PM - 3 Feb 2017
[url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=827689267078000640]

The judge’s ruling could be appealed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge’s written order, released late Friday, said it’s not the court’s job to “create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches” of government.

The court’s role “is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws.”

Robart said federal defendants “and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from” enforcing the executive order.

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the matter is under litigation, said Friday: “We are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and our legal teams to determine how this affects our operations. We will announce any changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that information is available.”

Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and immigrant entry.
The two states won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which aims to permanently block Trump’s order. Court challenges have been filed nationwide from states and advocacy groups.

In court, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the focus of the state’s legal challenge was the way the president’s order targeted Islam.

Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and the travel ban was an effort to make good on that campaign promise, Purcell told the judge.

“Do you see a distinction between campaign statements and the executive order,” Robart asked. “I think it’s a bit of a reach to say the president is anti-Muslim based on what he said in New Hampshire in June.”

Purcell said there was an “overwhelming amount of evidence” to show that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, which is unconstitutional.

When the judge questioned the federal government’s lawyer, Michelle Bennett, he repeatedly questioned the rationale behind the order.

Robart, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, asked if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Trump’s order since 9/11. Bennett said she didn’t know.


“The answer is none,” Robart said. “You’re here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

Bennett argued that the states can’t sue on behalf of citizens and the states have failed to show the order is causing irreparable harm.
Robart disagreed, and rejected a request from Bennett for an immediate stay of his order.

The State Department said Friday that Trump’s order cancelled visas for up to 60,000 foreigners from the seven majority-Muslim countries.
That figure contradicts a statement from a Justice Department lawyer on the same day during a court hearing in Virginia about the ban.
The lawyer in that case said about 100,000 visas had been revoked.

The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas.

Ferguson, a Democrat, said the order is harming residents, businesses and the state’s education system.

Washington-based businesses Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the state’s efforts. They say it’s hurting their operations, too.

[GMDino]

And the POTUS has tweeted!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/04/trump-blasts-so-called-federal-judges-block-travel-ban/97484556/

Quote:President Trump, in a Saturday morning tweetstorm, personally challenged the credentials of the "so-called" federal judge in Seattle who issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban Trump put in place last week.

U.S. District Senior Judge James Robart, who was appointed to his post in 2004 by George W. Bush, issued an order Friday night that immediately lifted the ban that sought to block people from seven majority-Muslim countries,  or any refugees, from entering the country.

In a series of tweets from his winter retreat in Mar-a-Lago, Trump took on the judge's decision: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump] Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
8:12 AM - 4 Feb 2017

In issuing his decision, Robart was siding with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who filed a suit to block key provisions of the president's executive order, which also bars Syrian refugees from entering the country.

In a conference call Friday night, airlines were told that the U.S. government would reinstate traveling visas that were previously canceled. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection advised airlines that refugees possessing U.S. visas will be allowed to enter as well, according to media reports.

Trump, however, took issue with the ruling, tweeting: "When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!"

The president also noted, "Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!"

Even before the president's comments, the White House said the federal government would challenge the judge's decision.

In Washington state, however,  Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, hailed Ferguson and applauded the decision.

"We should feel heartened by today's victory and more resolute than ever that we are fighting on the right side of history," the governor said in a statement.
"Thank you to (Attorney General Bob Ferguson) and his team for making the case that no person - not even the president - is above the law."
Amnesty International also applauded the development.

"This decision is a short-term relief for thousands of people whose lives have been upended, but Congress must step in and block this unlawful ban for good," organization spokesman Eric Ferrero said in a statement. "Trump's Muslim ban is inhumane, unlawful, and discriminatory, which is why the courts and the public want it to be stopped."

Ferguson said his team has been working around-the-clock for the last week on reversing the executive order.

"It's obviously an historic decision and an important one for the rule of law and for the people of the state of Washington and the people of our country,"
Ferguson said. "I have said from the beginning: it is not the loudest voice that prevails in the courtroom, it is the Constitution, and that's what we heard from Judge Robart today."


People hold candles during a vigil at Thanksgiving Square in downtown Dallas on Jan. 30, 2017. People gathered to protest against President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. and suspending the nation's refugee program. (Photo: LM Otero, AP)

The decision is effective immediately nationwide, Ferguson said.

A lawyer with the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union said the decision was significant.

"The decision in Washington reaffirms that the courts will stand up to the president," said Lee Gelernt, the lawyer who successfully argued for a restraining order against Trump's ban in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y.

"The courts have and will continue to recognize that this executive order favors Christians and disfavors Muslims and that is antithetical to American values and flatly inconsistent with the United States Constitution."

Word of the decision came shortly after revelations about an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton out of Boston, who refused to extend a temporary order that allowed some people affected by Trump's ban to enter the country.

Gorton ruled that the ACLU failed to demonstrate a need for an ongoing restraining order, according to the Boston Globe.

The ACLU and other advocacy groups were aiming to extend the restraining order. Trump's stay affected travelers coming in from the seven majority-Muslim countries and spurred protests at airports across the country.

With Friday's decision in place, it is now up to federal government to try to seek an appeal, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said. Washington state officials will confer with the federal government over the next several weeks, he said.

Department of Justice attorneys defending the executive order highlight the president’s broad legal authority to restrict entry of immigrants when deemed in the national interest of the United States, citing congressional authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In this case, the federal attorneys argue the purpose of the executive order is “intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals.”

[GMDino]

Two hours of tweets from the President of the United States of America.



He's losing his mind.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Quite simply, this judge is wrong and his decision will be overturned. While there are certainly aspects of the EO that are unconstitutional, most (all?) of which have stopped being enforced already, the entire EO is not and no one without an agenda could make a serious legal argument otherwise.

[GMDino]

(02-04-2017, 01:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite simply, this judge is wrong and his decision will be overturned.  While there are certainly aspects of the EO that are unconstitutional, most (all?) of which have stopped being enforced already, the entire EO is not and no one without an agenda could make a serious legal argument otherwise.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2017, 01:45 PM)GMDino Wrote:

A law degree is not required, a simple knowledge of legal precedent would suffice.  

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-04-2017, 01:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite simply, this judge is wrong and his decision will be overturned.  While there are certainly aspects of the EO that are unconstitutional, most (all?) of which have stopped being enforced already, the entire EO is not and no one without an agenda could make a serious legal argument otherwise.

You're right. An agenda would be involved in straightening out this mess. Any EO that contains unconstitutional elements should be immediately replaced with one that is totally devoid of any constitutional risk. Stop the public outcry nonsense, get the judges off the front page, and move on to the next issue without any further distractions. That's MY agenda.

[GMDino]

(02-04-2017, 01:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A law degree is not required, a simple knowledge of legal precedent would suffice.  

Weird. You'd think the judge would know that over a random internet poster.

But whatever....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2017, 02:03 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: You're right. An agenda would be involved in straightening out this mess. Any EO that contains unconstitutional elements should be immediately replaced with one that is totally devoid of any constitutional risk. Stop the public outcry nonsense, get the judges off the front page, and move on to the next issue without any further distractions. That's MY agenda.

Understood, but,respectfully, you're making a political argument, not a legal one.  As for stop the public outcry, that's not possible.  If Trump fulfills any campaign promise there will be public outcry.  People have whipped themselves into a hysterical froth.  You'll note I do a lot of countering arguments around here lately but not a lot of supporting Trump?  That's because I don't, largely, support his actions.  What I do not like, and never will, is hysteria, hyperbole and arguments based on false information, deliberately or otherwise.  This country has become a hotbed for all of these.

(02-04-2017, 02:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Weird. You'd think the judge would know that over a random internet poster.

But whatever....

He does.  Not working with judges you are apparently unaware of the fact that many, if not most, let the personal opinions bleed into their decisions.  For example, if we have a case go before Judge A, I can tell you that the defendant will likely get probation.  If the exact same case goes before Judge B then I can tell you that the defendant will get a long state prison term.  Know your judges is one of the first things I teach my subordinates because what will fly in one judge's courtroom will get you pilloried in another.

This specific incident is an outstanding case of judge shopping.  It was no accident that this case was filed in a particular area so as to get a particular judge.  Do a little research to find out why.  

[GMDino]

(02-04-2017, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood, but,respectfully, you're making a political argument, not a legal one.  As for stop the public outcry, that's not possible.  If Trump fulfills any campaign promise there will be public outcry.  People have whipped themselves into a hysterical froth.  You'll note I do a lot of countering arguments around here lately but not a lot of supporting Trump?  That's because I don't, largely, support his actions.  What I do not like, and never will, is hysteria, hyperbole and arguments based on false information, deliberately or otherwise.  This country has become a hotbed for all of these.


He does.  Not working with judges you are apparently unaware of the fact that many, if not most, let the personal opinions bleed into their decisions.  For example, if we have a case go before Judge A, I can tell you that the defendant will likely get probation.  If the exact same case goes before Judge B then I can tell you that the defendant will get a long state prison term.  Know your judges is one of the first things I teach my subordinates because what will fly in one judge's courtroom will get you pilloried in another.

This specific incident is an outstanding case of judge shopping.  It was no accident that this case was filed in a particular area so as to get a particular judge.  Do a little research to find out why.  

Certainly a good thing police officers never do that.  

All seriousness aside you don't "know" this judge so you can't say.  And secondly it will be appealed by the administration, and if it is to one of those judges that will let their "personal opinions bleed into their decisions" and find for the administration will we then be okay with calling the decision "wrong" because of it?

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-04-2017, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood, but,respectfully, you're making a political argument, not a legal one.  As for stop the public outcry, that's not possible.  If Trump fulfills any campaign promise there will be public outcry.  People have whipped themselves into a hysterical froth.  You'll note I do a lot of countering arguments around here lately but not a lot of supporting Trump?  That's because I don't, largely, support his actions.  What I do not like, and never will, is hysteria, hyperbole and arguments based on false information, deliberately or otherwise.  This country has become a hotbed for all of these.


He does.  Not working with judges you are apparently unaware of the fact that many, if not most, let the personal opinions bleed into their decisions.  For example, if we have a case go before Judge A, I can tell you that the defendant will likely get probation.  If the exact same case goes before Judge B then I can tell you that the defendant will get a long state prison term.  Know your judges is one of the first things I teach my subordinates because what will fly in one judge's courtroom will get you pilloried in another.

This specific incident is an outstanding case of judge shopping.  It was no accident that this case was filed in a particular area so as to get a particular judge.  Do a little research to find out why.  

Thanks for the respect, but I do believe my argument is a legal one. This president has put forth something that has raised serious constitutional issues. Is he above the law that allows him to do that? EOs must survive a legal vetting process. I don't believe this is a political viewpoint. Not for a second.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2017, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Certainly a good thing police officers never do that.    

Not a police officer, but yes, it is smart to know.  It also perfectly illustrates my point, which is that, within the law there is a lot of room for interpretation.  Your saying the opinion is automatically both legal and correct simply because a judge made it is ridiculous.  If such were the case there would be no need for appellate courts.

Quote:All seriousness aside you don't "know" this judge so you can't say.  And secondly it will be appealed by the administration, and if it is to one of those judges that will let their "personal opinions bleed into their decisions" and find for the administration will we then be okay with calling the decision "wrong" because of it?

I don't have first hand experience with him no.  I have heard a lot of second hand information though, enough that his ruling didn't surprise me in the least.  As to your second point, there are some judges who are more centered than others, who tend to interpret the law without letting personal bias affect them.  The trial judge for the Freddy Gray officers is an excellent example of this.  I don't know a single person who took issue with his rulings in any of those cases, bench officers, attorneys, leo's, no one.  I know many who snickered at this temporary stay simply by dint of who made it and why.

Judges are like any other profession, there are some who are very good and there are some who are not.  The high end judges are able to remove themselves from their decisions, the not so good ones are not.  This would be an example of the latter.  Did you agree with every opinion by Judge Scalia?  If not, why?  Not only was he a judge he was a supreme court justice.  Surely he knows the law better than you?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2017, 02:37 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Thanks for the respect, but I do believe my argument is a legal one. This president has put forth something that has raised serious constitutional issues. Is he above the law that allows him to do that? EOs must survive a legal vetting process. I don't believe this is a political viewpoint. Not for a second.

Precedent has been firmly set that the POTUS has broad discretion in controlling who can and cannot enter the United States.  This EO is not breaking new ground in that regard, beyond the initial interpretation that it affected permanent aliens and green card holders, which is no longer enforced.  

[GMDino]

(02-04-2017, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a police officer, but yes, it is smart to know.  It also perfectly illustrates my point, which is that, within the law there is a lot of room for interpretation.  Your saying the opinion is automatically both legal and correct simply because a judge made it is ridiculous.  If such were the case there would be no need for appellate courts.

Nope. I shared the story, said the judge probably knows more about it than a random internet poster, and added that it will be appealed.

So no idea why you wrote that in the above paragraph.

(02-04-2017, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't have first hand experience with him no.  I have heard a lot of second hand information though, enough that his ruling didn't surprise me in the least.  As to your second point, there are some judges who are more centered than others, who tend to interpret the law without letting personal bias affect them.  The trial judge for the Freddy Gray officers is an excellent example of this.  I don't know a single person who took issue with his rulings in any of those cases, bench officers, attorneys, leo's, no one.  I know many who snickered at this temporary stay simply by dint of who made it and why.

Judges are like any other profession, there are some who are very good and there are some who are not.  The high end judges are able to remove themselves from their decisions, the not so good ones are not.  This would be an example of the latter.  Did you agree with every opinion by Judge Scalia?  If not, why?  Not only was he a judge he was a supreme court justice.  Surely he knows the law better than you?

I don't have to "agree" with any of the rulings. However I do trust that they understand the law better than I do. Like I trust the plumber understands his job better. If I see something I disagree with I will say so and question it.

I don't say:

(02-04-2017, 01:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite simply, this judge is wrong and his decision will be overturned.

...as if I am certainly more informed than the judge.

However your swing from:

(02-04-2017, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not working with judges you are apparently unaware of the fact that many, if not most, let the personal opinions bleed into their decisions.

to

(02-04-2017, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The high end judges are able to remove themselves from their decisions, the not so good ones are not.  This would be an example of the latter.

is simply because you disagree with the ruling and kinda neat to watch how you can say *this* judge is biased by his own opinions but the judge who will agree with you is not.

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-04-2017, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Precedent has been firmly set that the POTUS has broad discretion in controlling who can and cannot enter the United States.  This EO is not breaking new ground in that regard, beyond the initial interpretation that it affected permanent aliens and green card holders, which is no longer enforced.  

Which goes directly to my point. This, which is no longer being enforced, should not have been an issue, had the president taken the time to ensure he was not issuing something that needed to be corrected. That is/was my single/simple point. No need to politicize it, as it was never my thought on the subject.

Believe it or not, I acknowledge Trump as my president too. And I want him to be one that leads within our laws. Every one of them. Add me to the list of those who abhor the hysteria and sensationalism we're seeing. The list of important issues needing responsible attention is way too long to allow these distractions betray the needs of every citizen. It is not my desire to criticize who supported whom, as we are here, as in now. What each of us do from this point forward may form a decisive point in history. I see the words and actions of all of us to be very significant in terms of what kind of world our children inherit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2017, 02:59 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Which goes directly to my point. This, which is no longer being enforced, should not have been an issue, had the president taken the time to ensure he was not issuing something that needed to be corrected. That is/was my single/simple point. No need to politicize it, as it was never my thought on the subject.

Agreed.  He threw red meat to his base and did so hastily.

Quote:Believe it or not, I acknowledge Trump as my president too. And I want him to be one that leads within our laws. Every one of them. Add me to the list of those who abhor the hysteria and sensationalism we're seeing. The list of important issues needing responsible attention is way too long to allow these distractions betray the needs of every citizen. It is not my desire to criticize who supported whom, as we are here, as in now. What each of us do from this point forward may form a decisive point in history. I see the words and actions of all of us to be very significant in terms of what kind of world our children inherit.

Again, agreed.  I'm off to the range, thankfully it didn't rain today.  Enjoy your weekend, and the SB, if you choose to watch it.  I'm on the fence in that regard.

[*wildcats forever*]

(02-04-2017, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed.  He threw red meat to his base and did so hastily.


Again, agreed.  I'm off to the range, thankfully it didn't rain today.  Enjoy your weekend, and the SB, if you choose to watch it.  I'm on the fence in that regard.

Thanks. I'll keep a good thought for better days.

Are you guys getting near mudslide issues yet? That and wildfires are the main things that I don't miss from living there (of course)....I could bore the living crap out of you about what I do miss though. 

Go Falcons cause if they are in a position to win, then it's been a good game. And it's the last game we get for 6+ months. And that's just too long.

[Dill]

(02-02-2017, 11:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose 13 years of vetting isn't "extreme" enough.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Assali-Family-Syria-Donald-Trump-Vote-Allentown-Immigration-Ban-Travel-Order-412238593.html

 "Like ISIS now, they ask, 'Are you Christian? What do you believe?''

Guy has a point. 

[*bfine32*]

I will say Trump calling dude that overturned the EO a "so called" judge is uncalled for and shows a pettiness I do not want in a POTUS.

I have a question:

Is this EO being handled like Obama's EO that provided Amnesty to Illegals? Seems no waves were made on that one until SCOTUS said you can't do it. Are we that much more determined to let folks into our county than we are to remove them?