Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-appeals-to-restore-travel-ban-says-earlier-ruling-was-second-guessing-the-president/2017/02/05/6fcdbb5a-eb4c-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.0f6756df82c6

Quote:Just hours earlier, the Trump administration had said it was improper for a lower court to engage in “second-guessing” of President Trump’s controversial immigration order and asked the appeals court to dissolve the judge’s order that stopped its implementation.

Lawyers for the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the states of Washington and Minnesota should not have been allowed to challenge the ban and that a judge was wrong to stop Trump’s executive order, issued just more than a week ago.

“Judicial second-guessing of the President’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration,” Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a brief.

[The Justice Department’s argument to restore the travel ban]

Two judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by Jimmy Carter, and Michelle Taryn Friedland, who was appointed by Barack Obama — denied the request.

The administration is fighting a Seattle federal judge’s decision from Friday night that imposed a temporary, nationwide halt to Trump’s order barring refugees and those from seven majority-Muslim nations from entering the country.

Even as Trump’s administration complied with the orders of U.S. District Judge James L. Robart, the president blasted out his unhappiness with an extraordinarily personal criticism.
Demonstrators support the travel ban Saturday outside Los Angeles International Airport. (Reed Saxon/AP)

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump tweeted in Saturday morning. On a weekend trip to Florida, Trump went off to play golf, then returned to Twitter in the afternoon to say “many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country” because of the judicial decision.

[Trump lashes out at ‘so-called judge’ who temporarily blocked entry ban]

Trump exaggerated the impact of Robart’s order, and Democrats charged that the president was trying to intimidate the independent judiciary. “The president’s hostility toward the rule of law is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement.

The State Department said people with valid visas could enter the country. The Department of Homeland Security said it would “resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure” that existed before Trump’s more restrictive executive order.

Advocates encouraged travelers from the affected countries who qualified for entry to get on planes as soon as possible because of the unpredictable legal terrain.

The developments continued what has been a chaotic rollout of Trump’s order, made Jan. 27. More than a dozen legal challenges have been filed around the country, and only one judge so far has indicated that he was willing to let Trump’s order stand.

The decision of Robart, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and has been on the bench since 2004, was the most consequential because of its national implications.

It is somewhat unusual for a district judge to issue an order that affects the entire country, but Robart said it was necessary to follow Congress’s intention that “the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”



He was quoting from a 2015 appeals court ruling that had blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action that would have made it easier for undocumented immigrants in this country to remain. It was never implemented because of legal challenges.

[Travelers from Iran board flights to the United States following stay, attorney says]
While the losing side can request intervention from the Supreme Court, it would take the votes of five justices to overturn the panel decision. The court has been shorthanded since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia nearly a year ago, and it is ideologically divided between four liberal and four conservative members.

The issue could reach the high court in days — or weeks.

Robart granted a request from attorneys for the states of Washington and Minnesota who had asked him to stop the government from acting on critical sections of Trump’s order. Justice and State department officials had revealed Friday that about 60,000 — and possibly as many as 100,000 — visas already have been provisionally revoked as a result of Trump’s order.

The State Department said Saturday it would restore those visas. Robart’s order also enjoined the government from enforcing a section of the executive order that bars the entry of Syrian refugees.

The State Department said it is still working with other government agencies and the organizations that process refugees overseas to comply with the judge’s order. That means the action may not immediately help those seeking approval.

Immigration lawyers said the State Department had informed them they should rebook trips for refugees whose plans were canceled after the executive order, which temporarily halted the refu­gee resettlement program.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security said it would allow 872 refugees into the country who were “already in transit” and would face “undue hardship” if denied admission.

“This ruling is another stinging rejection of President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We will keep fighting to permanently dismantle this un-American executive order.”

Trump’s criticism of Robart reminded some of his remarks during the presidential campaign about the impartiality of a California federal judge who was hearing a class-action lawsuit involving Trump University.

Others countered that Obama had also been critical of judicial decisions he did not like — scolding the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address for its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and saying during
the legal battle over the Affordable Care Act that it would be “unprecedented” to strike it down.

But Trump’s denunciation of Robart was more personal and direct. Vice President Pence defended the president’s words in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will air on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I think the American people are very accustomed to this president speaking his mind and speaking very straight with them,” Pence said.

He agreed with Stephanopoulos that Robart had the authority for his ruling and said “we’ll go through the process in the courts to get a stay of that order, so that, again, we can implement this action that is entirely focused on the safety and security of the American people.”

Other Republican leaders were mute, on both the decision and Trump’s language, and some in the GOP were unsettled by it.

“My advice to POTUS — attack the decision (it’s weak) not the judge,” Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho), who had backed Trump’s immigration order, wrote on Twitter. “Liberals are imploding, don’t make personal attacks the story.”

Democrats were not shy. “The president’s attack . . . shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn’t always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.

Leahy said Trump “seems intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.”

The legal battles over Trump’s immigration order have become the mirror image of Obama’s attempt to shield illegal immigrants after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Sign up
Obama’s executive action would have deferred deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants who had been in the country since 2010, had not committed any serious crimes and had family ties to U.S. citizens or others lawfully in the country.

In that case, Republican state attorneys general led the fight against the order. A district judge in Texas agreed with them that it probably exceeded the president’s powers, and issued a nationwide injunction. Months later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed; months after that, the Supreme Court took up the issue.

But the court deadlocked, meaning that the lower court ruling stood and the Obama administration suffered one of its most consequential legal defeats.

The players have changed sides now, with Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights groups leading the fight against Trump and celebrating a district judge’s imposition of a nationwide order.

[GMDino]

Let me preface the latest Trump lie flub with some praise:

I heard this morning that NOW the administration is approaching their court fight over the ban as they made an overreach but don't feel the entire things should be thrown out because of it.

That's the right approach.

That's what SHOULD have been done before rushing it out.  But that would have had to involve folks who think through things rather than just assume they are right and nothing will go wrong.

Now, on to the news!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-kuwait-idUSKBN15K09O

Quote:Kuwait denies it imposed travel ban praised by Trump


By Noah Browning | DUBAI

Kuwait has denied a media report which said it had imposed a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, a story which U.S. President Donald Trump praised on Facebook.

"Smart!" a post on Trump's official Facebook page said on Thursday, linking to a report on Jordanian news website Al Bawaba which alleged that Kuwait had "mirrored" a decision by the Trump administration to temporarily bar travelers from several countries.

The article alleged that "Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis and Afghans" would not be allowed to enter the Gulf state "while the blanket ban is in place".

But Kuwait's foreign ministry refuted the report, which was widely picked up by news websites popular with Trump supporters including Breitbart, Infowars and Sputnik.

Kuwait "categorically denies these claims and affirms that these reported nationalities ... have big communities in Kuwait and enjoy full rights," a ministry spokesman was quoted as saying on state news agency KUNA on Friday.

Citizens of the countries mentioned visit Kuwait regularly, it added.

Confusion and protests at airports greeted the executive order Trump signed last weekend to bar for 90 days entry into the United States by travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Representatives of the proscribed countries as well as several neighboring nations condemned the move, but Trump on his Twitter account said the initiative enjoyed support in the region.

"Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!" he wrote.





The United Arab Emirates was one country which did publicly give the ban a measured response. Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed called the ban an internal U.S. matter which did not target Muslims.

[*bfine32*]

(02-04-2017, 08:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Of EVERYTHING folks have tried to show Trump in a negative light in his short Presidency, I have found this one to be the most troubling. It appears his current choice for SCOTUS agrees with me:

 https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gorsuch-calls-trump-comments-judiciary-220750338.html

Quote:U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch told a Democratic senator he found Donald Trump’s comments "disheartening" and "demoralizing" when the president criticized the judiciary over a federal court order that blocked his immigration ban.

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told reporters about Gorsuch’s comments after meeting privately Wednesday with Trump’s first U.S. high court nominee.Ron Bonjean, a spokesman aiding Gorsuch in the confirmation process, confirmed Blumenthal’s account of their conversation in an e-mail and said Gorsuch "used the words disheartening and demoralizing."

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2017, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of EVERYTHING folks have tried to show Trump in a negative light in his short Presidency, I have found this one to be the most troubling. It appears his current choice for SCOTUS agrees with me:

 https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gorsuch-calls-trump-comments-judiciary-220750338.html

I saw that and applauded it. Especially since the spineless weasel sycophantic House Judiciary Chair won't say anything. Anyway, I digress. Gorsuch is very much against executive overreach. Somethint that could cuse Trump to regret this selection down the road.

[GMDino]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

Quote:President Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.

Full text: 9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.

Trump immediately tweeted his reaction to the ruling: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

Quote:[/url] Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
6:35 PM - 9 Feb 2017

"It's a political decision, we're going to see them in court, and I look forward to doing that," Trump told reporters in the White House Thursday. "It's a decision that we'll win, in my opinion, very easily."

Trump's presidential rival Hillary Clinton celebrated the decision, tweeting simply "3-0."

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton] Follow
Hillary Clinton 

@HillaryClinton
3-0
7:17 PM - 9 Feb 2017

The states of Washington and Minnesota had challenged the ban.

"Bottom line, this is a complete victory for the state of Washington," said state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision effectively granted everything we sought."

The Justice Department is reviewing the decision, it said in a statement.

Fight over executive power

The legal drama over the immigration executive order was the first episode in what could be a series of legal challenges to Trump's governing style and agenda and represents the first confrontation between his White House and the checks and balances of the American political system.

The judges rejected the Trump administration's sweeping claims of executive power, saying, "There is no precedent to support this claim of unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."

"Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution," the judges wrote.

The states have the legal right to be in court because of injuries to state business and state universities "traceable to the executive order," they added.

"The Trump administration has lost dramatically and completely, and they're going to have to decide what to do next," said Jeffery Toobin, a CNN political analyst, on "The Situation Room."

The order bars citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

Trump issued the travel ban January 27, causing chaos, confusion and protests at international airports as the legal status of people in transition was suddenly thrown into question. Lawsuits have been filed across the country, but it was one from federal Judge James Robart in Seattle last Friday that blocked the travel ban nationwide, clearing the way for resumed travel from the seven countries.

The three-judge panel heard oral arguments Tuesday evening via telephone and issued the ruling Thursday per curiam, meaning it is unsigned and there was no dissent. Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, and Judge William C. Canby Jr, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, Judge Richard R. Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush, heard the case.

"This decision will have a lot more public credibility because it is unanimous, and I think it complicates the Trump administration's attempt, if they choose to make it, to disparage this decision as a political act," Toobin said.

Trump has already indicated that he would take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, a move that would set up a legal showdown of even higher stakes and visibility.

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 10:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

As to the ruling: I have more respect for it than I do the reaction of POTUS. I laugh at the common folk that constantly try to find fault in everything related to Trump and his Presidency; however, he must respect this decision. A simple "we will most likely take this to the highest court in the land" would have sufficed. 

His best route would be to concede this defeat and look toward the future. WTS, I can understand how someone that was just overwhelmingly elected to the most powerful position in the world could be taken aback when it was confirmed that a local judge can reverse your EO and you have no recourse. 

As to Hills' reaction: really?  

[GMDino]

Lol he says this like he didn't just lose in court twice. ? https://t.co/6ESTbEybvu

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) February 10, 2017

[Belsnickel]

It should be noted that the scope of the ruling from the 9th is extremely narrow. Essentially, the case wasn't about the constitutionality of the ban itself, it was about the restraining order put in place by the district court. the DoJ was trying to argue the EO was not reviewable by the judiciary and that it was necessary for for national security. Their claim of it being not reviewable was seen as unprecedented (and quite frankly, I find that claim to be the most concerning thing to come from the Trump WH so far) and that they did not make a decent case that the restraining order impacted national security to the degree the DoJ was claiming.

The fight over the legality of the order itself is yet to come.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm a little confused. I thought the President has the right to impose travel bans from certain countries. To me the people who already have Visas is a different story. Matt are you saying that they aren't saying the ban is illegal, only that the lower court had the right to temporarily halt it while it is reviewed?

[BmorePat87]

(02-10-2017, 10:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It should be noted that the scope of the ruling from the 9th is extremely narrow. Essentially, the case wasn't about the constitutionality of the ban itself, it was about the restraining order put in place by the district court. the DoJ was trying to argue the EO was not reviewable by the judiciary and that it was necessary for for national security. Their claim of it being not reviewable was seen as unprecedented (and quite frankly, I find that claim to be the most concerning thing to come from the Trump WH so far) and that they did not make a decent case that the restraining order impacted national security to the degree the DoJ was claiming.

The fight over the legality of the order itself is yet to come.

To paraphrase what one legal commentator said "if you tell a judge that the court does not have the right to review something, you can bet that they will review it". 

A boneheaded move but it reflects an administration that is more concerned with appearances than doing what is smart. Cut your losses and redraft the order. You're not going to win a fight where you tell a judge in their court that they do not have the authority to do something. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-10-2017, 11:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm a little confused. I thought the President has the right to impose travel bans from certain countries.  To me the people who already have Visas is a different story.  Matt are you saying that they aren't saying the ban is illegal, only that the lower court had the right to temporarily halt it while it is reviewed?

That's what I have been reading. The court hasn't made a judgement on the constitutionality of the order, just that the court has the authority to put a hold on the order while it is reviewed and the administration hasn't provided enough evidence that there is a threat to national security if this order is halted in the meantime. 

[Griever]

(02-09-2017, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the ruling: I have more respect for it than I do the reaction of POTUS. I laugh at the common folk that constantly try to find fault in everything related to Trump and his Presidency; however, he must respect this decision. A simple "we will most likely take this to the highest court in the land" would have sufficed. 

His best route would be to concede this defeat and look toward the future. WTS, I can understand how someone that was just overwhelmingly elected to the most powerful position in the world could be taken aback when it was confirmed that a local judge can reverse your EO and you have no recourse. 

As to Hills' reaction: really?  

There's no real trying to find fault

It's right there in front of you. All you have to do is use your eyes and you'll see it

[GMDino]

I 've been saying for 4+ years that Trump is a narcissistic egomaniac.

Almost every response he's ever made to even the smallest perceived slight or negative comment has shown this over and over.

But NOW people are saying he shouldn't respond that way?

Same people who said the 70 year old who has never been told in his life would "change" and start acting "more presidential" when he was elected.

To paraphrase: He is who we thought he was.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2017, 12:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: To paraphrase: He is who we thought he was.

And he was elected to be POTUS all the same.

[Rotobeast]

(02-10-2017, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And he was elected to be POTUS all the same.

And.....you and I agree on how that happened.
Tolerance turned into forced acceptance, creating the snap-back effect.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-10-2017, 12:15 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: And.....you and I agree on how that happened.
Tolerance turned into forced acceptance, creating the snap-back effect.

Indeed, and the Dems continue in that direction despite this.  I even had an argument with my sister, who is very even keel, about how it's not ok to use physical violence against someone regardless of what they're saying.  We were discussing the "punch a Nazi" meme.  The left might be more intolerant than the right at the moment.  They've certainly lost any claim to being the party of tolerance.

This keeps up and the GOP will have a super majority after 2018 and that could potentially be a very bad thing.

[Rotobeast]

(02-10-2017, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, and the Dems continue in that direction despite this.  I even had an argument with my sister, who is very even keel, about how it's not ok to use physical violence against someone regardless of what they're saying.  We were discussing the "punch a Nazi" meme.  The left might be more intolerant than the right at the moment.  They've certainly lost any claim to being the party of tolerance.

This keeps up and the GOP will have a super majority after 2018 and that could potentially be a very bad thing.

As a whole (meaning my observations from Facebook), they've been more aggressive than the right for about 9 years.

I'd say Libertarians are the least aggressive (most crazy though).
The party platform supports the Non-Aggression Principle.
Many even sign a binding contract agreeing to it.
I agree to the principle, but I'm not signing anything...lol

[GMDino]

(02-10-2017, 12:15 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: And.....you and I agree on how that happened.
Tolerance turned into forced acceptance, creating the snap-back effect.

And people got angry that "their" America was changing.  So they turned out more than they have in the past.

And they were willing to overlook everything else about the "man" because he promised to bring back "their" America.

Hook, line & sinker.

[Rotobeast]

(02-10-2017, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: And people got angry that "their" America was changing.  So they turned out more than they have in the past.

And they were willing to overlook everything else about the "man" because he promised to bring back "their" America.

Hook, line & sinker.

And you are correct.
They felt like they were pushed too far and overreacted.
Hopefully this cycle does not continue.

[GMDino]

(02-10-2017, 12:49 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: And you are correct.
They felt like they were pushed too far and overreacted.
Hopefully this cycle does not continue.

And how do you stop people from "feeling" they are being marginalized when they are not?

Are they same people that think allowing gay marriage is giving gays "extra rights"?

Fear is a powerful thing.