President Donald Trump Says New Immigration Executive Order Is Coming Soon

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Aazadan

It only refers to stationing soldiers.

There have been very few cases on the third. There's lots of room in there to argue founders intent. At the time stationing soldiers was used to punish citizens because the soldiers for the military were usually those who were imprisoned. Using the government to mandate punishment by forcing people to live with you is very much in line with the spirit of the amendment.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

It was properly vetted last time around by the White House counsel and DOJ counsel.

Vetted? - yes.

Properly? - no.

Not even close. Plus the man just can't keep his mouth shut. He needs to do it right, STFU and move on...

a reply to: Byrd

That's invasion of privacy and it's ineffective.

True.

But our constitutional protections do NOT extend to non citizens.

Only US citizens are protected under the Constitution of the United States Of America.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Americans seem to think that but that is not always the case.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Riffrafter

Americans seem to think that but that is not always the case.

Can you expand on that a little?

We're not talking about morality and ethics - although both are important. We're talking about legal protection under the constitution.

I'm not an expert, so would appreciate any info you can provide.

Thanks.

a reply to: Aazadan

I dont call it punishment...... i call it leading by example.

If these judges and politicians think its a great idea to hiuse refugees from countrys that despise tge USA then these politicians and judges should be the first to house and pay for them

a reply to: Riffrafter

I'm no expert either but I have read that many of the "rights" in the constitution are in fact constraints on the government and it applies to the government regardless of the status of the people under its jurisdiction.

The law, except for those that specify the requirement of citizenship or have some diplomatic immunity, applies to everyone in the country.

a reply to: crazyewok

That has always struck me as a pretty lame proposition.

I know on the surface it sounds valid but you can't compare people's private property to public property or even the right of refugees to enter a country.

People opposing refugees even if they have relatives that will have them shows that the problem really isn't a place to stay.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

It was properly vetted last time around by the White House counsel and DOJ counsel.

Vetted? - yes.

Properly? - no.

Not even close. Plus the man just can't keep his mouth shut. He needs to do it right, STFU and move on...

the DOJ and White House Counsel cleared it as legal and constitutional. In case you missed it with your blinders on no courts have ruled the law illegal or unconstitutional, contrary to the false lies from the left.

The only people who need to "STFU and move on..." are people like you who have no clue how the law works.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Byrd

That's invasion of privacy and it's ineffective.

True.

But our constitutional protections do NOT extend to non citizens.

Only US citizens are protected under the Constitution of the United States Of America.

They extend to non citizens who are in the United States. Get your facts right before giving out false info.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

It was properly vetted last time around by the White House counsel and DOJ counsel.

Vetted? - yes.

Properly? - no.

Not even close. Plus the man just can't keep his mouth shut. He needs to do it right, STFU and move on...

the DOJ and White House Counsel cleared it as legal and constitutional. In case you missed it with your blinders on no courts have ruled the law illegal or unconstitutional, contrary to the false lies from the left.

The only people who need to "STFU and move on..." are people like you who have no clue how the law works.

I don't think so mate.

I know no court has ruled it illegal or unconstitutional. But they were able to get the courts to both issue and then uphold a stay of the order weren't they?

He needs to issue a new EO, written more carefully, and his lawyers need to be prepared to defend it if challenged.

Or do you disagree with that too?

a reply to: Riffrafter

A stay until judge Robart could hold a hearing. The appeal to the 9th circuit was to get his stay lifted during the process (no new stay was issued by the 9th). The judge and the 9th circuit errored by ignoring the constitution, the law and supreme court rulings. The states have no standing and judge robart never should have allowed their case to have standing.

Trump will issue a new EO on Monday or Tuesday, ending the drama created by the 4 judges in question. A judge in the 9th circuit requested a rehearing en banc (11 judges instead of 3) which generally means there is not an agreement with the 3 judge ruling.

Just because a judge issues a ruling does not mean they are correct. The 9th circuit is one of the most overturned appeals circuits in the nation. That is because the judges ignore the Constitution and the law in order to legislate from the bench. The 9th once ruled gun ownership was not a constitutional right, contrary to what our 2nd amendment says.

That is how bad the judges are out there on the left coast.

The EO is lawful and constitutional as it stands now based on the Presidents constitutional authority over refugees and the delegated authority by Congress over Immigration.

So he'll overstep again, get challenged in court again, and again, once he can't provide any proof for what he claims this is for, it'll get squashed.

Again.

The problem isn't that he lacks authority, it's that he lacks vision and the proper facts, to make an argument in court.

He wasn't told by the courts he didn't have the authority. He failed to make a better argument than those who disagreed with him.

His justice department is weak and the courts ruled in the favor of the ones with the better argument. Trump has his administration to blame. Had they actually planned this better, they would have done better.

The whole argument he had in court was ' we maintain that the courts have to right to look into this'.

lol

~Tenth

a reply to: Xcathdra

Issuing a new EO is a smart thing to do. The worst case scenario for Trump would be that the EO is ruled unconstitutional, which would force him to write a very different EO to replace it. Instead, replacing it while there's merely a hold gives him more flexibility.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The EO is lawful and constitutional as it stands now based on the Presidents constitutional authority over refugees and the delegated authority by Congress over Immigration.

I agree...but it could have been crafted better. For instance, it should have explicitly exempted Green Card holders.
Instead the office of White House Counsel had to "clarify intent" a day or so later.

Make the new EO tighter and more explicitly in line with the law and constitution and that one will sail thru....liberals be damned.

As far as the original EO - he can leave it and fight or he can withdraw it.

What do you think he'll do?

a reply to: Riffrafter

I think he will leave it and issue a new EO. It is also possible his not wanting to appeal to the Supreme Court may be related to the en banc request in the 9th circuit. If the TRO ruling / 9th circuit 3 person ruling is overturned by the en banc he wins in both realms and once again the liberal left will blame everyone else for their failures while continuing there trend of cutting off their own nose to spite their face.

Also green card holders / visa holders can have their status rejected. I am not entirely sure why people think that cannot happen (not you).

a reply to: Xcathdra

Resident status (green card) can be taken away but there must be a reason and the person has a right to a hearing and to appeal the immigration judges decision.

The SCOTUS has weighed in on similar questions before.

Calcano-Martinez v. INS, INS v. St. Cyr

In Calcano-Martinez v. INS and INS v. St. Cyr, the Court reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases, and eliminated the ability of the INS to subject many legal residents to "mandatory" deportation for old criminal offenses.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm no expert either but I have read that many of the "rights" in the constitution are in fact constraints on the government and it applies to the government regardless of the status of the people under its jurisdiction.

Thanks - and I think you're correct.

But trying to decide where that line begins and an individual's standing to sue (or lack thereof) ends, might prove interesting and probably would be an interesting court case in itself.

a reply to: Riffrafter

I think the line is established.

Being a US citizen has a few entitlements, number not reflecting importance. The right to enter the US freely, the right to vote, the right to hold office and that is about it. Everything else is equal under the law.

I think that it is a hard pill to swallow for some, especially when all the nationalistic rhetoric tries to paint a different picture.

a reply to: daskakik

And Green Card holders don't need a visa to re-enter the U.S. either.

Never did.