It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could 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.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal


This is a perfect example of why it's too early to call Trump a success just a few days into his presidency. Signing an executive order is just the beginning. If you don't believe me about that, just read John McCain's opinion.


.@POTUS can sign whatever executive orders he likes, but the law is the law - we're not bringing back torture

LINK


There are ways for executive orders to be stopped.


You can say one thing for the new POTUS: he's been busy. Just two full days into his four-year term, President Donald Trump has signed ten executive orders. Some of them — like withdrawing from the TransPacific Partnership free trade agreement negotiated by President Obama — were met with bipartisan support (though there were certainly detractors as well). But most of these executive orders — from fast-tracking the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines to rolling back Obamacare — have many Americans deeply concerned about the reach of executive power. Unfortunately, while Congress can pass laws to override executive orders, those laws are subject to presidential veto. And even if the Republican-controlled House and Senate somehow decided to defy their party's own president, it's just not all that difficult to imagine Trump exercising his veto power.

There is another way, though. The Supreme Court can declare an executive order to be unconstitutional, which has a rather strong record of precedents. Recent history, for instance, saw the Supreme Court block Obama's executive order to delay deportations of certain undocumented immigrants. Reaching further back, the Supreme Court actually struck down President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, an executive order the president issued during the Civil War. His government ignored the Supreme Court sanction.

LINK


What will happen with Trump's immigration ban? Will the Supreme Court get involved?
edit on 27-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Has the EO been signed yet? The verbiage will be the important part to look at.

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could 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.”


I don't know that normal immigration processes will be suspended, only refugees.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I think Trump is trying to fulfill the promises he made to the American People. Maybe only a few of his executive orders will stick. Maybe all of the executive orders will stick, but at least he can say "I tried to fulfill my promises", and then he can point the finger at who is obstructing the will of the People. The rest will be up to us, to vote them out, or revolt.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The language I'd heard Trumpers use was that peoples wouldn't be admitted from nations that didn't provide a vetting process; i.e., didn't share criminal histories on their citizens with the US, or didn't maintain such criminal histories.

So technically, that isn't discrimination based on birth-place, but rather discrimination based on the availability to corroborate what they've put on their intake form.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Didn't President Carter do the same thing?

STM



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
You all forgot to take into account all the powers the last 2 presidents got under guise of fighting terrorism. How much did the Patriot act and subsequent add-ons and renewals give him. Those are what I would look at before thinking some law from 1965 was the precedent.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Obviously you aren't the only person who would know this which makes me wonder why nobody else, like his advisors, would tell him???

Or do you think they did tell him and he's going to try and hopefully just push it through anyway and break the law??

Or do you think they told him and so now they're trying to get some smart lawyer to dress it up in a way that skirts the law with clever wording and BS??

Because each of those carry a different type of reasoning involved ethically speaking and will also have different results depending upon which of those it is.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

John McCainVerified account
@SenJohnMcCain

Follow
More
.@POTUS can sign whatever executive orders he likes, but the law is the law - we're not bringing back torture www....

It was quite easy to see what Trump was doing by saying he approved of torture. He was avoiding any future scandal if and when it was found someone was being tortured. Mattis has said he's not in favor of torture and he's the guy that counts in this situation. Besides, I think we all know, there's gonna be times when people get tortured, like it or not.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

It may be "technically" wrong to do this by "national origin" by the current INA laws. He should have stuck with "religious affiliation, political belief, or ideology" which are not protected under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

He could still do it based on these criteria.

Section 212 f -

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.

But technically the above may be limited by Section 202

…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.

Unless the above is specified by congress (section 101 (a) (27)



So yes, it could be taken to court and maybe overturned UNLESS congress authorizes it OR Trump revamps the EO to bar specific "religious affiliations, political beliefs, or ideology" which again are not protected under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).



Proponents of the Trump plan could argue that section 202 does not directly state that its restriction applies to section 212.... so who knows.
edit on 28-1-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Vice President Pence believed it was unconstitutional and offensive...in 2015.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Is there a communication disconnect between immigration and refugees? It is completely possible I missed something and Trump is halting immigration processes too. I thought they were two different things.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Obama's E.O.s are unconstitutional. But hey if it's Trump it's ok.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I see that bureaucratic red tape and political mumbo jumbo is obscuring the facts from the reality of the situation.

Millions of people, without any verification of whom they hold allegiance to, are flooding into nations world wide. Many are without a doubt, placed in these masses in order to establish cells with ill intent toward the host nation.

This is not speculation, it is evidently factual. And it is going unhindered, and even supported by left wing hippies who think it's groovy man, to have like, middle eastern foods and stuffs...

Who in their right mind would think doing so is a good thing? And so what is the alternative. Exactly what President Trump is doing. But to the LW-SJW it is an affront to the sensitivities of pinko world, where everyone is a kitten loving, dog walking, all loving precious flower.

It makes perfect sense to ensure that the people you let into your country, are of good character, and are not known members of some extremist group hell bent on running you over in trucks, shooting yours nightclubs up, be.ing your soldiers, or blowing themselves up in shopping malls, or at sporting events.

You can thank the previous administrations for causing the influx of refugees. They put a hole in the tub, it's time someone stopped the tap from dripping.

BTW, Even Australia now is victim to a random crazy muslim convert running into packed crowds in his car.... while the circumstances are different, he was a messed up meth . and violent by any standard prior, the fact that he did this, shows that influence by world events is not going to stop, but simply put, we need to apply caution where caution is due.

And unvetted refugees are certainly something to be cautious about, given what we've seen already...

My 2 cents... I'm just watching the world sit in the pot, slowly boiling, while it doesn't do a thing about it till it's well cooked...

edit on 28-1-2017 by savemebarry because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Good thing there is a SCOTUS (in lieu of a god) to sort it out.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: savemebarry

Does Islam allow for being a Meth Head, Religiously Speaking that is??



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: savemebarry




This is not speculation, it is evidently factual.

Please provide the factual verification that this is the case in the US, which is the only place in which Trump has any authority whatsoever.

Please provide evidence that refugees are allowed access to the US without sufficient vetting.

edit on 1/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, thank God we can block the stoppage, temporarily of millions of un-vetted immigrants from terror ridden Muslim nations showing up in the U.S. with no process at all to protect against potential threats all over the nation. Thank GOD Phage, really, wtf is wrong with those idiot racists?

Great thinking! /sarc.

PS: This is one reason people are sick of the whole "globalist" agenda. And another reason Trump is in office.

edit on 28-1-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

I am unclear up the scope of your sarc.

Are you saying that refugees have been allowed into the US unvetted?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Will this help?

Source: thehill.com...


The former . of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says the U.S. does not have the capabilities to vet Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the country.

“Particularly from certain parts of the world, I’m just not sure that we’ve got the background information — they talk about screening, they talk about being able to review everybody in a timely way, and it may take a year or two,” Tom Ridge told John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 on Sunday.

“I’m just not confident that they’ve got sufficient information from law enforcement, the intelligence community to do effective screening,” he added.

“So, a pause for refugees from that part of the world is very appropriate at this time.”



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wookiep

I am unclear up the scope of your sarc.

Are you saying that refugees have been allowed into the US unvetted?


I'm saying that if the Democrats have their way they will, yes. Under the guise of "racism".




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join