Travel Ban

[BDKJMU]

120 days for refugees..

[Skjellyfetti]

Thank you, BDKJMautist.

[CID1990]

Yeah, it's for 90 days like the previous one.

I was wondering because if I watch the news it seems that we're banning Muslins for evah

BTW I'm looking forward to these extreme vetting procedures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

I respect CID, so I won't stoop that low to use this post for a personal goal.



Whooooooooooops! Sorry, CID.

[∞∞∞]

Latest order is blocked by the federal judge in Hawaii...

[Gil Dobie]

Latest order is blocked by the federal judge in Hawaii...

Been busy all day reviewing Trumps Taxes.

[Ivytalk]

Latest order is blocked by the federal judge in Hawaii...

Look who's back.

[houndawg]

Yeah, it's for 90 days like the previous one.

I was wondering because if I watch the news it seems that we're banning Muslins for evah

BTW I'm looking forward to these extreme vetting procedures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try the BBC

[HI54UNI]

The judge in Hawaii must be pretty damn good. 43 page decision issued less than 2 hours after the hearing ended.

[CID1990]

The judge in Hawaii must be pretty damn good. 43 page decision issued less than 2 hours after the hearing ended.

Yeah crazy people would say it was planned in advance- before reading the EO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

I'm still waiting for the Trump "See you in court" tweet again...
You know, because that was funny

[CID1990]

I think it will be interesting to see this appeal, given this brief written by 9th circuit jurists that weren't in on the original decision-

I don't think the moratorium is necessary but I do think it is legal

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... 20banc.pdf




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

4th Circuit upholds block on Trump's muslim ban.

[GannonFan]

Never understood why he tried to fight this particular battle, but then again, when you're a buffoon, you tend to defy reason anyway.

With that said, when reading most of the decision, it's based largely upon the fact that Trump was outspoken before becoming President that he wanted to ban Muslims. I wonder, if and when Trump is either impeached or otherwise leaves office, if Pence ever uttered the same language. And if he didn't, could he issue the same EO and have it hold up because he didn't voice these specific concerns about Muslims? Like I said, it just reads that because Trump said at one point (more than once) that he wanted to ban Muslims, then it stands to reason that this order, coming from him, is that, even if it doesn't say that it is. When Trump does leave office it would be an interesting, albeit unnecessary, Constitutional challenge.

[bluehenbillk]

You knew all along this would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

[Pwns]

Never understood why he tried to fight this particular battle, but then again, when you're a buffoon, you tend to defy reason anyway.

With that said, when reading most of the decision, it's based largely upon the fact that Trump was outspoken before becoming President that he wanted to ban Muslims. I wonder, if and when Trump is either impeached or otherwise leaves office, if Pence ever uttered the same language. And if he didn't, could he issue the same EO and have it hold up because he didn't voice these specific concerns about Muslims? Like I said, it just reads that because Trump said at one point (more than once) that he wanted to ban Muslims, then it stands to reason that this order, coming from him, is that, even if it doesn't say that it is. When Trump does leave office it would be an interesting, albeit unnecessary, Constitutional challenge.

Not a legal scholar, but that seems troubling. So later on Trump could institute a ban based on more specific and credible threat and the courts don't need to prove it's not a discriminatory policy because he said he wanted to ban Muslims in the campaign.

[GannonFan]

You knew all along this would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Why do you think they'll even take it? I don't think it's a guarantee at all that it will be taken up by the SCOTUS.

[BDKJMU]

4th Circuit upholds block on Trump's muslim ban.

Trump didn't issue a Muslim ban. There are about 50 majority muslim countries, Trump's order affected 6..

[BDKJMU]

You knew all along this would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Why do you think they'll even take it? I don't think it's a guarantee at all that it will be taken up by the SCOTUS.

Doesn't the question needs to be answered if the below portion of 8 USC 1182 is valid or not?

"..(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.."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. A president either has the ability to ban visas from certain countries as the law clearly states he does, or the law is null and void, no?

[Skjellyfetti]

Why do you think they'll even take it? I don't think it's a guarantee at all that it will be taken up by the SCOTUS.

Doesn't the question needs to be answered if the below portion of 8 USC 1182 is valid or not?

"..(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.."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. A president either has the ability to ban visas from certain countries as the law clearly states he does, or the law is null and void, no?

Ok, Ted Cruz.

There's also this.

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.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req= ... ion=prelim

[BDKJMU]

Doesn't the question needs to be answered if the below portion of 8 USC 1182 is valid or not?

"..(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.."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. A president either has the ability to ban visas from certain countries as the law clearly states he does, or the law is null and void, no?

Ok, Ted Boobs.

There's also this.

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.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req= ... ion=prelim

You left off
"Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, 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."

Sounds like an issue for SCOTUS to decide..

[BDKJMU]

I'd be interested to hear what our resident immigration expert or our attorneys on here have to say on this...

[GannonFan]

Ok, Ted Boobs.

There's also this.

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.

Not saying your quote is wrong, but this is taken directly from the DOS website on applying for an immigration visa:

Regarding some of the immmigrant visa categories, United States law limits the number of visas available each year, with certain limits by country.

I added the bold.

So yes, there is a preference or priority given to people based upon where they are coming from. I think it's generally been that way for about a century now as we started turning the spigot off for unrestricted immigration after 1900 or so. Not sure how the Dept of State's policies jibe with the US code you quoted, but clearly something along the way from the law to how it's implemented is different.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'd be interested to hear what our resident immigration expert or our attorneys on here have to say on this...

Well, we've had how many courts rule on this so far? But, I guess they're all just liberals off on an island in the Pacific somewhere.

From the 4th Circuit's ruling today:

Because Section 2(c) [of the EO] has the practical effect of halting the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of nationality, the court reasoned, it is inconsistent with 1152(a)1(A) [what I linked]. To that extent - and contrary to the Government's position - the court found that Presidential authority under 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1) [what BDK linked] is cabined by the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance.

But, I agree that SCOTUS should probably hear this at some point. Probably not until after August at the earliest, though. It will be awhile.

[CID1990]

From the 4th Circuit's ruling today:

Because Section 2(c) [of the EO] has the practical effect of halting the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of nationality, the court reasoned, it is inconsistent with 1152(a)1(A) [what I linked]. To that extent - and contrary to the Government's position - the court found that Presidential authority under 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1) [what BDK linked] is cabined by the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in visa issuance.

Yeah thats a reach

Especially since they are applying the section on IV (my specialty) to NIVs.

We absolutely discriminate by nationality- every day. Its called the Diversity Visa program. Nigeria's just ended two years ago because we reached a benchmark number of issuances where it is assumed that we now have enough Nigerians. So no more DVs for Nigeria.

(Now they come in pretending to have been born in Benin)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk