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: 63
89
<< 60  61  62    64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




It's not obvious.

It was obvious from the moment the EO was signed. ( And waved around for the cameras )

edit on 2/8/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheRedneck

I explained that the 1965 Immigration act modified the 1952 Immigrationa ct and that the CODE is a summary of those laws...




No, you didn't. You said the 1965 Act replaced the 1952 Act. You were wrong, though you have since back tracked having been shown your error.
edit on 8/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




It's not obvious.

It was obvious from the moment the EO was signed. ( And waved around for the cameras )


Thanks for your opinion.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Regarding the 1965 Act which states that no person can 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.”

Here is the effect of immigration policy on the immigrant population by continent over the past 15 years:



Looks like pretty clear discrimination to me. So much for that part of the 1965 Act.
edit on 8/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The 2015 Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act amended the 1965 act to allow for the designation of "country of concern" (new term for rogue nation) and allows citizens of a designated country, including citizens of other countries who have visited designated countries, to be banned from entering the US.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


and allows citizens of a designated country, including citizens of other countries who have visited designated countries, to be banned from entering the US.
Actually, it ended the visa waiver program for those countries. Said citizens can go through the visa process (as specified in 1965). They were not banned en masse.

edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



What are the new eligibility requirements for VWP travel?

Under the Act, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the VWP:

Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, or countries listed under specified designation lists (currently including Iran and Sudan) at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).
Nationals of VWP countries who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).

These restrictions do not apply to VWP travelers whose presence in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen was to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country, or in order to carry out official duties as a full-time employee of the government of a program country. We recommend those who have traveled to the seven countries listed above for military/official purposes bring with them appropriate documentation when traveling through a U.S. port of entry.

The vast majority of VWP-eligible travelers will not be affected by the new Act. New countries may be added to this list at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.


Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act

Its pretty clear when it says "nationals". Since individuals from the designated countries cant enter the US without a visa or refugee claim it applies to all nationals.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Since individuals from the designated countries cant enter the US without a visa or refugee claim it applies to all nationals.

Visa waiver. Do you know what the visa waiver program is? The act does not prevent people from going through the visa process.

These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
www.cbp.gov...


edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yup and the 7 countries o n the list are no longer a part of that program meaning their nationals cannot enter the US unless they have a visa. Absent the visa no citizens of those countries may enter the US.

It applies to all nationals in the 7 countries does it not?
edit on 9-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Absent the visa no citizens of those countries may enter the US.
Correct. But your claim that it:


allows citizens of a designated country, including citizens of other countries who have visited designated countries, to be banned from entering the US.
is false.

It does not prevent anyone from obtaining a visa (and thus, entering the US), based solely upon their nationality. Which is what the 1965 law prohibits.

edit on 2/9/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Stay has been upheld by the Appeals Court...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I hope people survive the coming attacks. Everyone please stay away from the cities.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UKTruth

I hope people survive the coming attacks. Everyone please stay away from the cities.

TheRedneck


Yes...Cuz we are less safe than we were 3 weeks ago before Trump tried to pass this constitutionally offensive cluster-eff of an EO...

What insane hyperbolic nonsense your post is..
edit on 9-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Lot's of good stuff in that ruling...



Reviewability of the Executive Order

The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order
because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.”

The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national
security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our
jurisprudence.

See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to
expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely
immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches
with respect to national security and foreign relations).

Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly
when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene
constitutional rights and protections.

The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”).

Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “resolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.”
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)).

We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.

Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration
and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review
executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.


To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.

....

(“‘National defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S.
1, 17 (1965)

www.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Scotus will over turn the 9ths incorrect ruling.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Less safe from who? Maybe the people who Trump tried to keep out?

Any terrorist activity that occurs due to someone who travelled from one of those 7 countries is now squarely on the shoulders of the District 9 court. Not Trump. The courts have changed the rules so the President no longer has authority over immigration; the court now has that authority and that responsibility.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...is now squarely on the shoulders of the District 9 court. Not Trump.


unelected district 9 court judges.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Incidentally, there is a way to fix this mess. Trump could have another Executive Order drawn up and ready to sign by morning that would make vetting so difficult that practically no one could get in, and have it apply to all countries.

A week ago I would have fought such an order; now I would support it.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Also after reading the 9ths ruling its in relation to just Judge Robart's ruling and TRO. This goes back to judge Robart for a full hearing and he ordered both sides to present evidence. If he rules in the Federal governments favor the 9ths ruling is moot.




top topics



 
89
<< 60  61  62    64  65 >>

log in

join