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.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Emergency Stay Granted - Defeat for Trump's Right Wing Agenda

page: 60
89
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Hearing scheduled for tomorrow.
www.washingtonpost.com... 9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.fc9f90991fc8




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Stay granted permitting Iraqi refugees to enter US. First defeat to Trump's right wing agenda and you know it won't be the last.

If this was constitutional, the Iraqis would not have been allowed into the US.

Thank you ACLU for filing a timely lawsuit and winning one for reasonable people everywhere.


Do we really know what Trump is? You all say Right Wing, but it seems to me that is just some talking point statement to paint with a wide brush anything he does. One of the reasons I say this is the last three Presidents limiting access to the United States were all Democrats and the last President that offered millions amnesty was a Republican. Even Trumps list of countries was created by a Democrat President.

Here are two, so tell me how is it now wrong and such Right Wing?



Truman
Under Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, the president has authority to use a proclamation to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for however long he deems necessary. This provision was included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.


Truman basically is saying that anyone of any class can be denied.



Obama
President Obama issued a presidential proclamation in 2011 suspending the entry of “any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in” war crimes or other violations of humanitarian law. That means the State Department has authority to block someone from getting a visa if they are found ineligible under that criteria.


Since Obama started the 7 Muslim country list of terrorist support do you not think he meant Muslims?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I think his argument, along with others who cite the 1965 immigration and nationality act, is that the law prohibits "discrimination" based on country of origin (IE an entire country cannot be banned).

What they fail to understand (or just dont care since it doesnt support their agenda) is the 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 amended the 1965 law to allow for countries to be designated as unable to enter the US if they come from certain countries.

Wanna guess what countries those are?

2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 ***PDF LINK***

Relevant changes start on page 4.

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

9th circuit has scheduled an hour for oral arguments on Tuesday at 6pm (not sure of what time zone though / most likely Pacific). The 3 judges assigned to hear the arguments - 2 were appointed by Democrats and 1 by a Republican.

Also the hearing at the 9th circuit will deal with the judges order/ruling and its validity/constitutionality. The focus is on do the states have standing to bring their challenge.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth

I think his argument, along with others who cite the 1965 immigration and nationality act, is that the law prohibits "discrimination" based on country of origin (IE an entire country cannot be banned).

What they fail to understand (or just dont care since it doesnt support their agenda) is the 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 amended the 1965 law to allow for countries to be designated as unable to enter the US if they come from certain countries.

Wanna guess what countries those are?

2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 ***PDF LINK***

Relevant changes start on page 4.

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6



I can tell he is confused because he is under the illusion that the 1965 Act replaced the 1952 Act.
The 1965 Act was very specific on the amendments to the 1952 Act.

Here is the original from 1965
library.uwb.edu...

Its been amended since as well, but the President's power stipulated in the 1952 Act has not been removed. Indeed the 1965 Act was much more about quotas.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Even if the part in question was removed the 1965 law and the 2015 law authorizes/reauthorizes the President to take the action.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth


What they fail to understand (or just dont care since it doesnt support their agenda) is the 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 amended the 1965 law to allow for countries to be designated as unable to enter the US if they come from certain countries.



Visa WAIVER Program...

That act didn't apply to people with Visa's...it applied to people who could come WITHOUT Visa's...those that were eligible for Visa WAIVERS..



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth


What they fail to understand (or just dont care since it doesnt support their agenda) is the 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 amended the 1965 law to allow for countries to be designated as unable to enter the US if they come from certain countries.



Visa WAIVER Program...

That act didn't apply to people with Visa's...it applied to people who could come WITHOUT Visa's...those that were eligible for Visa WAIVERS..



Have you figured out why you are wrong about the 1965 Act replacing the 1952 Act yet? Would you like me to enlighten you?
edit on 6/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Are you suggesting that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act removed the President's powers underC(f) ?
Can you provide citations please...


I am suggesting that when it comes to US Code and law you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

US Code is based on US Law...The 1965 Immigration Act is the premise of the US Code you cite..That's why the code cites it.


Are you sure the 1965 code is the premise of the law that gives the President the powers cited by Redkneck and others? Are you sure that was not the 1952 Act?
Maybe you could provide the specifics of the 1965 Act?



1965 Immigration ACT was not a "code"..Codes are summaries of laws on the books..like the 1965 Immigration ACT.

The 1952 act was amended by the 1965 Imm Act..thus the 1965 act is the standing law.

The CODE cited by Red is a summary of current immigration law, with the 1965 and 1952 laws underpinning it. The 1965 law is the most recent and applicable since ...I don't know..Time moves forward, not backwards.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth


What they fail to understand (or just dont care since it doesnt support their agenda) is the 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 amended the 1965 law to allow for countries to be designated as unable to enter the US if they come from certain countries.



Visa WAIVER Program...

That act didn't apply to people with Visa's...it applied to people who could come WITHOUT Visa's...those that were eligible for Visa WAIVERS..



Have you figured out why you are wrong about the 1965 Act replacing the 1952 Act yet? Would you like me to enlighten you?


You have already proven yourself impenetrable to the most basic legal definitions or order..

I am apt to simply let the courts answer this debate...you will have the 3rd slap down in less than 48 hours now.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Are you suggesting that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act removed the President's powers underC(f) ?
Can you provide citations please...


I am suggesting that when it comes to US Code and law you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

US Code is based on US Law...The 1965 Immigration Act is the premise of the US Code you cite..That's why the code cites it.


Are you sure the 1965 code is the premise of the law that gives the President the powers cited by Redkneck and others? Are you sure that was not the 1952 Act?
Maybe you could provide the specifics of the 1965 Act?



1965 Immigration ACT was not a "code"..Codes are summaries of laws on the books..like the 1965 Immigration ACT.

The 1952 act was amended by the 1965 Imm Act..thus the 1965 act is the standing law.

The CODE cited by Red is a summary of current immigration law, with the 1965 and 1952 laws underpinning it. The 1965 law is the most recent and applicable since ...I don't know..Time moves forward, not backwards.


You said that the 1965 Act replaced the 1952 Act.
You said earlier:

Precisely the opposite.. You cited a code that was amended to/built up the Immigration and Nationality Act.. that act was passed in 1952.. The 1965 Immigration and nationality Act replaced it (passed in 1968)


It did not. You were wrong.
I can see you are back tracking with your latest comment:

The 1952 act was amended by the 1965 Imm Act..thus the 1965 act is the standing law.


You are learning, but the 1965 Act did not become the standing law at all. You are wrong again.

The 1965 Act amended or deleted specific sections of the 1952 Act and made no mention at all of other sections. Those sections from the 1952 Act that were not amended remain.

Your understanding of this is shockingly bad, much like the NYT. A combination of laziness and confirmation bias, jumping to a specific section and failing to understand the whole. Do more work please, for your own sake.

The 1965 Act was very specific about the sections and subsections of the 1952 Act that were to be changed or stricken.
It did not amend or delete the Presidents powers from section 212 . You have been given that fact over and over again and chose to ignore it.


edit on 6/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Hearing scheduled for tomorrow.
www.washingtonpost.com... 9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.fc9f90991fc8


working link

The future of the temporary ban now lies with three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by President Carter; Judge Richard Clifton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland, who was appointed by President Obama. The judges said each side would have 30 minutes to present their arguments beginning at 6 p.m. Eastern. It is unclear how soon a ruling could follow. The hearing will be live-streamed, the clerk of court said..



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 law is, in fact present in current code?

Not sure what you are trying to claim?



(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) 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.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Let's read the whole thing, shall we?


(a) Per country level

    (1) Nondiscrimination

      (A) 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.

      (B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.


Hmmm, no mention of religion. So the Executive Order is not subject to anti-discrimination charges based on religion. Good, we got that out of the way.

The Executive Order does not discriminate on the basis of race: more primarily Muslim nations are excluded from it than are included in it.

The Executive Order does not discriminate on the basis of sex: nowhere is gender mentioned.

The Executive Order does discriminate on the basis of nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, but so does the entire VISA process. U.S.C. 1152 is titled "Numerical limitations on individual foreign states." The very title presupposes that there will be limitations on certain states. In addition, the Executive Order specifies a specific time period it is in effect on an interim basis, and specifies the reasons why it is necessary for national security; it does not change the annual limit on VISAs for the affected countries.

8 U.S.C. 1152 is not a restriction on the vetting process; it is a restriction on the numbers of VISAs that can be allocated for any particular country in any particular year. The President cannot say "I am going to allow 100,000 VISAs from Germany, but only 100 from Nigeria, because I think we need more Europeans in the country." The President CAN say " I am going to place a temporary hold on VISA Admissions from Nigeria because there is reason to believe they are harboring terrorists." That's what it says in (B).

Note the two words "preference or priority." Nothing in the Executive Order gives any preference or priority to any nation, nor does it discriminate in allowing number of VISAs allocatted towards anyone.

If this is the reason Robart granted the stay, this is going to get very interesting; he just demonstrated a complete ignorance of the law and should be removed for incompetence.

As did you, but you're not a judge.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you. Those appear to be sane, reasonable arguments, and I feel certain the stay will be lifted. I sincerely hope Robart is, as I just said, removed due to incompetance.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

this might help you...

www.cato.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 law is, in fact present in current code?

Not sure what you are trying to claim?



(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) 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.

www.law.cornell.edu...



I am not claiming anything. I am merely stating reality. The 1965 Act covered specific sections of the 1952 Act, either amending or striking down. The sections untouched in the 1952 ACT (or which there are many), remain the law.

So the 1965 Act did not replace the 1952 Act, nor is it the current law.. it is a subset of the current law.

The current law has the section you have quoted AND the standing section from 1952 which gives the President power to exclude any group for as long as he deems necessary. The fact that the 1965 Act left in the specific section (212) whilst amending many other parts of section 212 should give you a clue that they had no intention of striking it down - and, indeed, did not.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

The 1965 law is, in fact present in current code?

Not sure what you are trying to claim?



(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A) 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.

www.law.cornell.edu...




The current law has the section you have quoted AND the standing section from 1952 which gives the President power to exclude any group for as long as he deems necessary. The fact that the 1965 Act left in the specific section (212) whilst amending many other parts of section 212 should give you a clue that they had no intention of striking it down - and, indeed, did not.



The argument you are making is the failed argument that the Trump administration tried to make without success..Thier current brief is just an expansion on that faulted reasoning.



Resolution of Conflict

There is an apparent conflict between the statutes.

In the case of conflict, the rule of construction is
1) “to give effect to each but
2) to allow a later enacted
3) more specific statute to amend an earlier, more general statute,” Smith v. Robinson (1984).


The 1965 amendment is a limitation ..



On point 1, the government provided no argument that the section 202(a)(1) would still have “effect” as a prohibition if the president could choose to waive it at any time that he felt that a nationality was a detriment.

It merely stated that it applies “in the absence of action by the President.”

Judge Robart should have asked whether there is any circumstance in which the executive branch chooses to discriminate against a certain nationality in which they would describe those excluded nationals as not “detrimental” to the United States. Of course, no such case exists, meaning that the government’s argument would effectively nullify section 202(a)(1), which is naturally its intention.

On point 2, the government neglects to mention that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) was enacted in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was amended by 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1) in the Immigration Act of 1965.

Judge Robart at oral arguments considered this point important, stating that this “Congress had to be aware of” 212(f) but chose to enact the sweeping prohibition anyway.

On point 3, the government provides the following argument:

Section 212(f) is easily reconciled with section 1152(a)(1)(A): the latter sets forth the general default rule that applies in the absence of action by the President, whereas section 212(f) governs the specific instance in which the President proclaims that the entry of a “class of aliens” would be “detrimental the interests of the United States.”

This analysis cannot be taken seriously.

Section 212(f) allows the authority to the president to ban any class of alien for any reason.

202(a)(1) limits this authority only for one small category of aliens, immigrant visa applicants.

Moreover, 212(f) is in a general section of the law dealing with inadmissibility for all aliens, not just immigrants, whereas section 202(a)(1) is a section dealing only with immigrants.

This argument from the government almost becomes humorous in light of its argument in the very next paragraph, that there is no general prohibition on discriminating based on nationality.


www.cato.org...

edit on 6-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheRedneck

this might help you...

www.cato.org...



Interesting perspective, though laced with partisan nonsense.
It was written by David Bier, on of those immigration 'experts' that spends his time writing for liberal news rags like Washington Post and New York Times.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Codes are summaries of laws on the books..like the 1965 Immigration ACT.

Oh, my God. Please tell me you didn't just say that.

The United States Code, appreciated U.S.C. is US law by definition. Acts are sections of law passed by the Congress into law. Once enacted, they become part of the United States Code. If they are not part of the United States Code, they are not law.

U.S.C. is not just a 'collection'... it is the law!

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


And in short...WATCH what happens next...

There is a reason why Mitch McConnell (Alabama Native) said Congress would not step in to defend the ban...Cuz he went to law school.

The 3 Judge panel will slap this down....and I suspect Trump will throw a tantrum again, then appeal to a more conservative lower court to avoid a SCOTUS ruling..He might find a conservative lower court to go his way, but if so it will get appealed again to SCOTUS..and SCOTUS, with or without his current nominee on the bench, will rule against him...cuz this aint politics..it's is a horribly structured EO...>CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES will knock this down...that is the irony.




top topics



 
89
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join