Jump to content


Immigration Ban


Recommended Posts

http://time.com/4656940/donald-trump-immigration-order-1952/

 

This is an interesting article on immigration bans since the early 1950s.

 

There are 2 contrasting legislative actions, 1952 & 1965, which on the surface one gives Trump permission and on the surface one does not give Trump permission to do what he has done.

 

Quotes;

The 1952 law tweaked but maintained the quotas established by the Immigration Act of 1924. And, though it eliminated the racial condition for citizenship that had long held back Asians, it set the new quotas in such a way that favored Western Europeans. A key provision, however, gave the President the ability to overrule those quotas.

Section 212(f), states: "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."

 

However the article states:

 

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an amendment to the 1952 law that changed the composition of immigration into the U.S. by eliminating discriminatory quota imbalances—a move that also led to the first limits placed on Latin American immigration—and stipulating that immigrants could not be denied a visa because of their race, sex, nationality or place of birth. "For over four decades, the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system," Johnson said when he signed the law on New York's Liberty Island.

The new law, however, did not create a wide-open door. It also did not specifically get rid of a clause that allows the president to deny anybody entry to the U.S. under special circumstances. "The way the law is written, it doesn’t matter what the reason is," Mae Ngai, an immigration historian at Columbia University, explains.

There's only a 13-year difference between 1952 and 1965, yet two very different Americas existed during those years. The American Society for Legal History's Rebecca Scott calls the world that produced the 1965 legislation much more "inclusive" and "rights-conscious" than that of the early '50s.

Some legal scholars argue that it's not up to Trump to decide which of those periods is the best parallel for today. If Congress restricted the president's ability to block immigration based on national origins in 1965, they contend, then Trump's executive order must be illegal, though he is certainly not the first president to make use of Section 212(f) after 1965.

 

Other presidents and their bans:

 

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan used it to bar “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas," while in 1986, he used it to bar Cuban nationals, with some exceptions. In 1994, Bill Clinton used it to bar anyone in the Haitian military or government affiliated with the 1991 coup d’état that overthrew the democratically-elected president. Ten years later, George W. Bush used it to bar corrupt members of the government of Zimbabwe from entering the U.S. And in 2012, Barack Obama used it to bar hackers aiding Iran and Syria.

Trump, however, appears to be the first president to apply a blanket ban to everyone from a specific country (more than one, in this case) since President Jimmy Carter used the provision to keep out Iranians during the Iran hostage crisis.

 

Article's conclusion

 

Whatever the upshot of the legal challenges to Trump's order, some scholars say there's nothing new about his recent actions.

"We’ve always been an immigrant nation and an anti-immigrant nation," argues Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof, a professor of history and American culture at the University of Michigan. For much of the 20th century, he says, "there's been tension between domestic politics that are trying to restrict in the name of populism, and it comes into conflict with a foreign policy agenda about engagement with the world."

Link to comment

 

 

 

Trump is a champion for those who are either happy or indifferent to inflicting this hurt upon others. They know it's indefensible in civil argument. Fortunately, POTUS is now their protector and their hero.

 

An unfortunate state of affairs, to say the least.

Sometimes we need to put the security of this nation before other countries. I lock my doors at night not because I hate everyone outside of my house but because I love the people in my house.

 

Guaranteed had Obama gone through executing this 90 day ban on the 7 countries HE had addressed as having terroristic ties 2 years ago, people would be praising him. But no since it's Trump, he's a psycho, bigot, racist, ex.....

Why didn't Obama do it 2 years ago?
Cause he bombed 5 of the 7 countries instead :dunno

 

How come his Iraq ban for 6 months not criticized?

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

 

 

Because a situation in Bowling Green Kentucky (not a massacre, rather a threat that was mitigated) warranted the review and implementation of stronger vetting processes.

 

68532285.jpg

Link to comment

 

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims.

 

And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban.

 

So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is.

 

Than how much the TOP 5 Muslim countries in the world are not on this "Muslim" ban.......hmmmm

 

Because the so-called president and his inept administration failed to consult with the experts in the field. Instead, they took the lazy, dumb-ass approach and tried to cloak it in the designation signed by President Obama. The problem is two-fold for those idiots, however. First, Trump called for a Muslim ban repeatedly throughout his campaign, and worded the EO to penalize Muslims. Second, nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.

 

Not to hard to figure out.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

Trump is a champion for those who are either happy or indifferent to inflicting this hurt upon others. They know it's indefensible in civil argument. Fortunately, POTUS is now their protector and their hero.

 

An unfortunate state of affairs, to say the least.

Sometimes we need to put the security of this nation before other countries. I lock my doors at night not because I hate everyone outside of my house but because I love the people in my house.

 

Guaranteed had Obama gone through executing this 90 day ban on the 7 countries HE had addressed as having terroristic ties 2 years ago, people would be praising him. But no since it's Trump, he's a psycho, bigot, racist, ex.....

You scared of the little baby that needed heart surgery in Oregon because they couldn't perform it in Iran?

 

170203024856-trump-travel-ban-on-iranian

 

Such a scary terrorist...

Are the parents terrorist or have terroist ties? Don't know that's why there's a ban to figure these things out

 

Again 90 day ban to figure stuff out....not an eternity

Yeah, what a shame this poor child will not make it 90 days.

 

What is wrong with a vetting process that has not had a terrorist act done by a refugee? Just curious what else needs to be done. Waterboarding?

Did you know 24 governors wanted/signed an executive order to ban any Syrian refugees back in 2015 after the Paris terrorist attack from the hands of refugees.

 

But wait that happened in Europe and nothing has ever happened here. So what's the difference back then to what's now? Our vetting process was the same back than so what changed?

Link to comment

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims.

 

And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban.

 

So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is.

 

AR - not disagreeing wt your take on this - however, what Rudy told him and what Trump may have said in the campaign are immaterial to the proceedings as the court must rule specifically on the ban itself and not any 'hearsay' or peripheral issues. The court will have to decide if the ban is legal based on current law. They may lean heavy on the 1965 revision to the 1952 Immigration law I quoted in my post above or they may take 1952 at face value and rule in favor of Trump. Knowing the make up of the court and the mood of the country (which shouldn't determine the ruling) I would not be surprised to see the SC overrule the ban and favor the more recent revision of the law.

However, It appears Trump has decided to tweak his ban and try to do a workaround the court according to this article

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Immigration-Tweak/2017/02/10/id/773006/

Link to comment

 

Trump is a champion for those who are either happy or indifferent to inflicting this hurt upon others. They know it's indefensible in civil argument. Fortunately, POTUS is now their protector and their hero.

 

An unfortunate state of affairs, to say the least.

Sometimes we need to put the security of this nation before other countries. I lock my doors at night not because I hate everyone outside of my house but because I love the people in my house.

 

Guaranteed had Obama gone through executing this 90 day ban on the 7 countries HE had addressed as having terroristic ties 2 years ago, people would be praising him. But no since it's Trump, he's a psycho, bigot, racist, ex.....

 

Have you considered that this ban might make us less safe? ISIS is reportedly celebrating the "blessed ban" because it helps further their narrative that we are at war with Islam and it also shows that their terrorist attacks are making us afraid which could help bolster their recruitment. Given that individuals from these countries have killed zero people on US soil over the past 30 years, I don't think diminishing the negligible risk of attacks from these countries is worth empowering ISIS.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

These are one of those moments when I realize I am glad I didn't become a lawyer. The way lawyers write literally puts me to sleep.

 

Question QMany....it is my understanding that when a case goes up the appeals ladder, the lawyers are not allowed to enter into evidence knew information or evidence. They have to create arguments around the evidence that has already been presented as to why the decision is wrong. Am I correct about that?

 

And...if I am correct, the government's argument is going to remain extremely weak from here on out.

Not to jump in on QMany, but I'll take a stab at this.

 

1. Recognizing that there are exceptions to every rule, you are correct - evidence is produced in the district courts. At the appellate courts, additional evidence is not admitted or considered. Rather, the parties argue how the law applies to the facts developed at the trial level.

 

2. Again, correct. BUT...

 

3. Remember that what is happening now is not the actual case. The states of Washington and Minnesota filed suit to challenge PARTS of the executive order (EO). The states also asked the court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This is not uncommon at all - TROs are issued to be sure that the status quo remains while the case proceeds. The district court granted the TRO. That's what was appealed to the 9th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court.

 

4. The administration has a number of options at this point - ask the 9th Circuit to hear the appeal en banc; apply to the Supreme Court; resign itself to the ban remaining in effect until the trial is over. Of the first two, success is highly unlikely; the facts and the law don't support overturning the TRO. But that's all that this part of it is about.

 

5. The trial will be where ALL of the evidence will be developed and presented regarding the claims by the states. Once the trial is over, the judge rules on the merits of the entire case (whereas at this time the courts have simply been ruling on the merits of granting a TRO pending trial), the appeals start again, and so on.

Link to comment

 

 

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims.

 

And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban.

 

So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is.

AR - not disagreeing wt your take on this - however, what Rudy told him and what Trump may have said in the campaign are immaterial to the proceedings as the court must rule specifically on the ban itself and not any 'hearsay' or peripheral issues. The court will have to decide if the ban is legal based on current law. They may lean heavy on the 1965 revision to the 1952 Immigration law I quoted in my post above or they may take 1952 at face value and rule in favor of Trump. Knowing the make up of the court and the mood of the country (which shouldn't determine the ruling) I would not be surprised to see the SC overrule the ban and favor the more recent revision of the law.

However, It appears Trump has decided to tweak his ban and try to do a workaround the court according to this article

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Immigration-Tweak/2017/02/10/id/773006/

From the decision:

 

The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a Muslim ban as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).

Link to comment

 

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims.

 

And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban.

 

So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is.

 

AR - not disagreeing wt your take on this - however, what Rudy told him and what Trump may have said in the campaign are immaterial to the proceedings as the court must rule specifically on the ban itself and not any 'hearsay' or peripheral issues. The court will have to decide if the ban is legal based on current law. They may lean heavy on the 1965 revision to the 1952 Immigration law I quoted in my post above or they may take 1952 at face value and rule in favor of Trump. Knowing the make up of the court and the mood of the country (which shouldn't determine the ruling) I would not be surprised to see the SC overrule the ban and favor the more recent revision of the law.

However, It appears Trump has decided to tweak his ban and try to do a workaround the court according to this article

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Immigration-Tweak/2017/02/10/id/773006/

 

1. I was not making a statement on how the court would eventually rule; I was commenting on what was the intent of the so-called president and his administration in issuing this ban.

 

2. The wording of the EO, as well as the statements of the so-called president and Giuliani, are hearsay ONLY if the statements are presented without the proper authentication or not under the correct exceptions to the hearsay rule. But both the wording of the EO and the statements are probative; both indicate intent. The court will give each (assuming they are presented at the trial) the appropriate weight.

Link to comment

 

 

 

***SNIP***

 

This isn't a Muslim ban that so many knuckleheads think it is and it's only a 90 day ban to figure things out....it's not for eternity.

Actually, it is a Muslim ban. If you read the executive order, it has two provisions - one is that individuals who practice a "minority religion" are given preference during vetting and a second clause that allows for emergency immigration based on the same basis. Since those countries are majority Muslim, the ban is against Muslims.

 

And, don't forget that that Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that the so-called president consulted with Giuliani to find out how to implement a "legal" Muslim ban.

 

So, it isn't an immigration ban to protect this country as so many knuckleheads think it is.

 

AR - not disagreeing wt your take on this - however, what Rudy told him and what Trump may have said in the campaign are immaterial to the proceedings as the court must rule specifically on the ban itself and not any 'hearsay' or peripheral issues. The court will have to decide if the ban is legal based on current law. They may lean heavy on the 1965 revision to the 1952 Immigration law I quoted in my post above or they may take 1952 at face value and rule in favor of Trump. Knowing the make up of the court and the mood of the country (which shouldn't determine the ruling) I would not be surprised to see the SC overrule the ban and favor the more recent revision of the law.

However, It appears Trump has decided to tweak his ban and try to do a workaround the court according to this article

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Immigration-Tweak/2017/02/10/id/773006/

 

1. I was not making a statement on how the court would eventually rule; I was commenting on what was the intent of the so-called president and his administration in issuing this ban.

 

2. The wording of the EO, as well as the statements of the so-called president and Giuliani, are hearsay ONLY if the statements are presented without the proper authentication or not under the correct exceptions to the hearsay rule. But both the wording of the EO and the statements are probative; both indicate intent. The court will give each (assuming they are presented at the trial) the appropriate weight.

 

Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure how they will rule on intent. I know the court has in the past looked at the intent of legislation trying to bring clarity to a law - recent example - Justice Robert's original majority opinion on the ACA. It will be interesting to see how they look at intent in this case. I think they will rule against the EO.

Link to comment

I need to re-read the complaint again, but as I recall one of the challenges by the states is that the EO violated the Constitution as it's intended "target" was based on religion. Assuming that part of the challenge is not dropped by the states, the wording of the EO and the statements by the so-called president and Giuliani will be probative in determining that intent. Should be fun to watch.

Link to comment

And so it begins ... Friday nights seem to be when triggers' get pulled (some speculate it's because Jared is logged out for Shabbat).

 

I think the timing of this is more tied to the distraction of the court case and ban then anything else.

 

 

Was just writing about this. I have an uncle who is a LPR from Mexico who was just ordered to surrender his Green Card this week as part of this crackdown. He is a wealthy land developer in SoCal, never been arrested, honorably discharged vet, LPR is current, etc. He applied for citizenship right after Trump won and somehow that placed him into an "extreme vetting" category. I am trying to get more detail but everything we know so far is pretty shady.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...