Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kali74

The EO was not illegal because it did not ban all people of a religion, as many muslim countries were not banned, and it did not ban only people of a certain religion from the countries that were banned.

Yates and the leftist judges who backed her up all relied upon Trump's statements during the campaign. He did use the term "Muslim Ban" (fine with me, BTW) several times.

But as you correctly pointed out, in the order itself, the term "Muslim" was not used and most "Muslim" nations were not included in the ban.

Yates made a political call here.

It shouldn't have even been brought up in the hearing today. The rulings were not simply based on what Trump said during his campaign but the wording of the EO itself. Though the ban does not include all Muslims from everywhere, it includes all Muslims from certain places, while allowing others entry from the same places. That violates the 14th as well as the Establishment Clause.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kali74

The EO was not illegal because it did not ban all people of a religion, as many muslim countries were not banned, and it did not ban only people of a certain religion from the countries that were banned.

Yates and the leftist judges who backed her up all relied upon Trump's statements during the campaign. He did use the term "Muslim Ban" (fine with me, BTW) several times.

But as you correctly pointed out, in the order itself, the term "Muslim" was not used and most "Muslim" nations were not included in the ban.

Yates made a political call here.

It shouldn't have even been brought up in the hearing today. The rulings were not simply based on what Trump said during his campaign but the wording of the EO itself. Though the ban does not include all Muslims from everywhere, it includes all Muslims from certain places, while allowing others entry from the same places. That violates the 14th as well as the Establishment Clause.

The 14th is just for citizens of the USA, isn't it?

Cracks me up to see all the posturing from Trump & the republicans on these committees over the leaked information.

Translation: "We wouldn't be having to deal with this mess if someone hadn't shown our dirty laundry to the public. How dare they!"

Russia has a population of 140 million and Americans are terrified of Russians. Grow some balls.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

The 14th is just for citizens of the USA, isn't it?

Totally wrong. Non citizens are protected by the 14th amendment. Plyler v. Doe, Zadvydas v. Davis, and Almeida-Sanchez v. United States have established this.

Non citizens have legal rights, too. Despite how most right wing republicans may feel about it. Their feelings don't matter a lick when it comes to the actual enforcement of the law.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Precedent has been set in other immigration cases that immigrants, even illegal immigrants are entitled to several Constitutional rights. I don't know 100% that the 14th protects refugees and/or immigrants but the EO certainly violates the Establishment Clause.

ETA: AnonyMason has the answer.

a reply to: Kali74

It also included all Christians from those 7 countries. IMO it is better to stop looking at people through a religion glasses. Most people in the world are not religious. Even though it is said that 90% of Syrians are Muslims, very few of them are devout.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

The US constitution applies to US citizens. That's a huge difference between citizens and non citizens. In Russia their census only counts citizens.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Why would non citizens be protected? Americans dropped lord knows how many bombs in the Middle East. Foreigners are not protected by the US Constitution.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Legal precedent from the cases I've referenced. Our Constitution offers illegal, transitory, involuntary, and documented non citizens Constitutional protections. Human beings are all born with certain inalienable rights.

How man bombs we've dropped on another country mean nothing.

originally posted by: AnonyMason

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

The 14th is just for citizens of the USA, isn't it?

Totally wrong. Non citizens are protected by the 14th amendment. Plyler v. Doe, Zadvydas v. Davis, and Almeida-Sanchez v. United States have established this.

Non citizens have legal rights, too. Despite how most right wing republicans may feel about it. Their feelings don't matter a lick when it comes to the actual enforcement of the law.

For clarification, those cases you listed applied to folks on American soil.

a reply to: JinMI

The reply is still factual. Non citizens have rights under the US Constitution. To say that the 14th only applies to citizens is false.

a reply to: JinMI

To be on US soil they must pass customs. To pass customs they must have VISA. It's not like anyone can freely waltz into the US.

Until the day Christians are tolerated in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, the US should restrict their Muslims from entering the US.

An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. A nail for a nail.

Only in Syria are Christians tolerated.

a reply to: allsee4eye

No. Rather, after 90 days it gives Christians preference for entry.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: JinMI

To be on US soil they must pass customs. To pass customs they must have VISA. It's not like anyone can freely waltz into the US.

Some can and once they are here they are allotted certain protections. Why do you think we have illegal immigrants in US prisons? Why do we have courts for illegal immigrants?

It also exists where people overstay their visas.

a reply to: Kali74

Christians should be prioritized. They are murdered en mass in the Middle East.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Cracks me up to see all the posturing from Trump & the republicans on these committees over the leaked information.

Translation: "We wouldn't be having to deal with this mess if someone hadn't shown our dirty laundry to the public. How dare they!"

Was it the russians that threw out their dirty laundry too, like they did to the dems?

Yes or no?

originally posted by: AnonyMason

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

The 14th is just for citizens of the USA, isn't it?

Totally wrong. Non citizens are protected by the 14th amendment. Plyler v. Doe, Zadvydas v. Davis, and Almeida-Sanchez v. United States have established this.

Non citizens have legal rights, too. Despite how most right wing republicans may feel about it. Their feelings don't matter a lick when it comes to the actual enforcement of the law.

IN or OUT of the USA?

a reply to: allsee4eye

Also wrong. Illegal immigrants or involuntary immigrants did not come through customs. But the Constitution still applies to them.

The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants — whichever label is the flavor of the day — don't have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong — they are really, truly and sincerely wrong.

"Aliens," legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership (and that is now in doubt)

Source with court cases cited.