President Donald Trump Says New Immigration Executive Order Is Coming Soon

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

True.

But the very first right you cite is the basis for all the hoopla.

No foreign national has ANY *right* to enter the USA. They can ask/petition to enter but it is not a right.

The USA needs to be even handed and work within the boundaries of the constitution and pertinent laws when attempting to restrict entry, but that's it.

As long as what Trump ultimately does via EO is within the law - there will be no legal grounds to dispute it.

Remove the religious preference for Christians and explicitly state that permanent residents and other valid current visa holders are exempt, and that EO sails thru with nary a legal blip.

a reply to: xuenchen

That wasn't what was being sorted out in that case. The question was if the green cards could be taken away without due process.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Actually green card holders do have that right. That is what the hoopla is about.

The permission can be revoked but not the way the EO seemed to be trying to do it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Riffrafter

Actually green card holders do have that right. That is what the hoopla is about.

The permission can be revoked but not the way the EO seemed to be trying to do it.

True - I should have included them. And excluding them is one of the reasons Trump got in trouble with his EO. Also, showing a preference for Christians from Syria, made it somewhat of a religious "test". That more than anything gave the left what they needed to challenge his EO.

But, I still maintain that non green card holders that are foreign nationals have no *right* to enter the USA. But the onus is on the USA to craft a law or EO that is lawful & constitutional if they want to restrict certain countries or regions.

I don't think that will be too difficult to do.

a reply to: Riffrafter

You are right. They don't have that right and the laws and the proper procedures already exist.

Seems to me Carter did what you were talking about with Iran so it certainly is possible. The devil, of course, is in the details.

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

If they are inside the US. If they are not they are out of luck. Thats why judge Robart's ruling only applied to those in the US.

a reply to: Riffrafter

There is no mention of any religion in the EO meaning there is no religion test nor is their any violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. The media / left like to keep repeating that lie, along with the lie its a muslim ban when its not.

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not sure what you are talking about. That wasn't about Robart's ruling.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not sure what you are talking about. That wasn't about Robart's ruling.

the case you cited is not. We were discussing who had due process rights and you cited that case which only applies to individuals inside the US.

The stay judge Robart placed affected green card holders / visa holders who were already inside the US or were already in transit to the US. It did not apply to visa / green card holders outside the US who were not in transit.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I cited that case as something on the matter of revocation of resident status. I don't think the matter of being in the country or not is settled in either that case or Robart's stay.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Riffrafter

There is no mention of any religion in the EO meaning there is no religion test nor is their any violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. The media / left like to keep repeating that lie, along with the lie its a muslim ban when its not.

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

I didn't know that. Thanks.

So where did this "preference for christians from Syria" stuff come from?

Was it based on something Trump said?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Riffrafter

There is no mention of any religion in the EO meaning there is no religion test nor is their any violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. The media / left like to keep repeating that lie, along with the lie its a muslim ban when its not.

EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

Sec 4 (b) is probably the trouble spot, although it seems fine to me as we have allowed other religiously persecuted refugees to enter this country on an expedited basis many times in the past. He doesn't single out christians, just says "persecuted, minority religions"

Another reason why the states have no standing and why Judge Robart / 9th circus are wrong. The claims made by washington state about potential students, employees and professors -

Not one of the 5 have Visas.

The Ninth Circuit’s Stay On Trump’s Immigration Order Is Legal Garbage

This is where you should begin to get angry. After the court found it likely that Trump’s executive order violated constitutional rights of people who have no constitutional rights, it put those make-believe “rights” ahead of the country’s national security, and your right to be safe in your home, workplace, and place of worship. The court put the rights of the following people ahead of your safety:

Two visiting scholars (one without a visa) who wanted to spend time at Washington State University;
Three “prospective employees” of the University of Washington who had no visas; and
Two medicine and science interns without visas.

Yes, the court found that the make-believe “rights” of seven people (only one of which actually had a visa, and none of which were in the country) trump your right to live free and without fear. Their “rights” trump the national security interests of the U.S. government and its 300 million citizens. This is 100 percent wrong.

When presented with the fact that all seven countries Trump’s executive order affected were labeled “countries of concern” by the Obama administration (more than 60 terrorism-related arrests have occurred since 9/11 involving citizens of these countries), the court essentially said it didn’t care. Unless it was presented with something really juicy, like intelligence it has no authority to view, it would give no deference to the government’s argument that national security concerns must be taken into account. It’s a shameful and sad outcome.

click link for entire article op-ed.

Maybe the judges should be required to present their evidence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually the problem isn't those types of immigrants. The clarification made after the fact shows that the EO was in fact vague and could be applied to people who had already been vetted and could not have their right to entry stripped without due process.

That article makes light of that but there is legal precedence and the question of being inside/outside the country has not really been settled.

a reply to: daskakik

Actually it has. People outside the US / foreign nationals have no constitutional rights. Something the 9th circuit pointed out when ruling on Obamas illegal executive order on immigration when he thought he could rewrite federal law with it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

To have some constitutional rights, such as right to life, is applicable to foreigner citizens who are officially on US soil having passed US customs. Those who have not passed US customs are not on US soil even if they swam onto shore. It might sound weird, but that's how the law is.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Residents are not just foreign nationals inside or outside of the country.

It isn't black and white.