The law of the land on Trump's temporary ban

[WVPATX]

From Congress:

"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 non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."

From SCOTUS:

From the late 19th century through the present day, the Supreme Court has upheld almost every federal immigration regulation against constitutional challenge, citing Congress’s plenary power in this area. As Justice Kennedy wrote in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:

The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….

 

[JMichael]

n a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court announced Thursday it was evenly divided in a case concerning President Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration. (this was last year). Who supported the Court interfering with Presidential Power.

Trump tweeted that the court "kept us safe" from amnesty and in a statement said the issue is key in November's election.

 

[WVPATX]

n a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court announced Thursday it was evenly divided in a case concerning President Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration. (this was last year). Who supported the Court interfering with Presidential Power.

Trump tweeted that the court "kept us safe" from amnesty and in a statement said the issue is key in November's election.

Not sure what this has to do with anything being discussed.

 

[Popeer]

From Congress:

"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 non-immigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions may deem to be appropriate."

Plaintiffs are challenging his finding, arguing lack of evidence to support it. That's what judges want to see: the evidence. And just being Muslim from those seven countries probably won't cut it.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Plaintiffs are challenging his finding, arguing lack of evidence to support it. That's what judges want to see: the evidence. And just being Muslim from those seven countries probably won't cut it.

Well, if it was targeting only Muslims, then you'd have a point. Since it's targeting the whole of the country, it's not really discrimination.

 

[WVPATX]

Plaintiffs are challenging his finding, arguing lack of evidence to support it. That's what judges want to see: the evidence. And just being Muslim from those seven countries probably won't cut it.

The judge is in no position to see the evidence. The original judge lied when he claimed that no one was arrested from these 7 countries on terrorism charges. This is national security. The judge isn't privy to that information. The judge is not privy to National Security Council meetings. That is why SCOTUS says that it is improper to question the Executive Branch in these matters since the courts are in no position to do so.

 

[Popeer]

The judge is in no position to see the evidence. The original judge lied when he claimed that no one was arrested from these 7 countries on terrorism charges. This is national security. The judge isn't privy to that information. The judge is not privy to National Security Council meetings. That is why SCOTUS says that it is improper to question the Executive Branch in these matters since the courts are in no position to do so.

This is what they want proof for. In the initial hearing the government lawyer couldn't seem to cite any. I'm not saying one side or the other is right, but I'm sick and f***ing tired of "national security" being the catchall for the government to do whatever it pleases in secret.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.

 

[WVPATX]

This is what they want proof for. In the initial hearing the government lawyer couldn't seem to cite any. I'm not saying one side or the other is right, but I'm sick and f***ing tired of "national security" being the catchall for the government to do whatever it pleases in secret.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.

You're right, the DOJ lawyer did not know off the top of her head. But the Judge then lied, LIED and said there were none. He said zero were arrested. A demonstrably false statement from the bench. He lied because he had to rule the way he wanted to rule and needed evidence. So he just made it up.

 

[Mntneer]

Plaintiffs are challenging his finding, arguing lack of evidence to support it. That's what judges want to see: the evidence. And just being Muslim from those seven countries probably won't cut it.

The law doesn't require evidence to support it. It's pretty clear cut unless you're going to re-write law from the bench.