Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Partially Revives Travel Ban, Will Hear Appeal (bloomberg.com)
From a report: The U.S. Supreme Court partially revived President Donald Trump's travel ban and said the justices will hear arguments in the fall. The justices said the ban can apply for now only to people who don't have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." From a NYT report: Mr. Trump's revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation's refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures. [...] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, recently blocked both the limits on travel and the suspension of the refugee program. It ruled on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, saying Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority granted him by Congress. The court agreed to review both cases, and said it would hear arguments in October, noting that the government had not asked it to act faster.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this exact issue. The president absolutely has the authority to limit or stop any immigration, from any class of people, for literally any reason. Even if his stated reason was to explicitly block Muslims.
The lower courts know this. It's political grandstanding. It will be ruled Constitutional, once again.
The partial ruling is really about standing. If you don't have standing to sue, the courts won't hear your case. This means that they've already decided anyone whose visa application isn't affecting someone already in the United Stated doesn't have standing. Many of the Democrat States involved tried to make this a general injunction by claiming they had standing related to anyone who was visiting their State and thus might pay a tax or visit a conference they sponsored or whatever.
This tosses much of that and already makes it much more difficult to sustain the injunction in general, but rather just for specific individuals who can demonstrate they have a connection already to the United States. It signals a little how they'll deal with the unprecedented idea that the lower court judges have issued national injunctions rather than for specific individuals who sued. i.e. It ain't gonna fly and neither are the vast majority of people trying to avoid the ban. For the rest, we'll apparently have to wait for the next term.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
The statute was signed by President Truman - a democrat. Obama signed a similar order to Trump except it was for a longer period of time and gave more advanced warning. The vetting process was actually improved during that time. The President clearly has the authority although in this case it was likely not really needed. The bigger issue is people entering on temporary visa and never leaving.
Despite the noise that the vocal minority is making over this, I think you will find that most folks, if asked (assuming no one could find out the answer) would support a completed ban on Muslims in the country.
Naturally, most folks are simply afraid of being a racist or other "ist" word.
Honestly, I do not know understand why it is an issue to dislike someone because they are Muslim. It's not like disliking a person because they are brown, or black or whatever color.
Islam is a religion and an ideology. It is reasonable to not like a person based on what they choose to believe?
Everyone keeps repeating this notion that Islam is the religion of peace, but that it total bullshit. The backbone of Islam is based on submission. The word Islam means submit!
I work with several guys from Morocco. Naturally, they are all Muslim. They are seem like "normal" guys to me. I once asked one of my colleagues, hey... man, I heard that the Quran says that it is OK to hit your wife if she is disobedient or disrespectful.
His answer... Of course! How else shall she learn? He went on to explain that of course, you could not cause damage or marks, but only enough that she gets the point and never more.
For all those people who say how great and peaceful Muslim people are... go to the middle east. Take your wife, or go alone if you are a woman. See how "peaceful" they are. I have lived in the middle east and I will not support or "tolerate" and religion that puts so little value on a human because of their sex. If I am "Racist" because I won't tolerate their hatred of women, then.. fine, I'm a racist.
And no... I will not be hiding behind AC.
An increase in workload in one area cannot be made without a decrease in workload in another. Without the freeze, the government staff are tied up doing their regular job of interviewing, reviewing, and granting/denying visa applications (if they weren't busy with this stuff, then their job is unnecessary and they should be let go). Presumably the freeze was needed to pause the workload and free up the personnel, so the procedures and processes could be audited, revised, and new systems implemented.
What you say could be possible if new workers were hired to do the auditing, revising, and implementing. But since they'd be new, they'd have to interview current INS staff first to get a clear picture of how the current procedures are (or aren't) working and find potential gaps in security. So you'd still need to lessen the workload of the current staff - either by freezing immigration for a period of time, or delaying visa application reviews thus stretching out wait times. It's likely better to just skip the interviews and let the people who've been working with the system all this time work on revising it.
Trump's contention that the current system is full of holes and is letting dangerous people into the country would mean he would favor the freeze over the slowdown as the more security-conscientious choice. I disagree with his contention. But I agree the President has the legal authority to make temporary changes to immigration like this. Obama implemented a similar freeze (or ban, to use your terminology) on Iraqi refugee immigration for 6 months, although that ban was based on specific intel.
No, there literally are not. The legislative branch is different from the executive branch, with powers enumerated in the Constitution. The constitution Article 1 Section 8 grants the power to define naturalization to Congress. The power to restrict alien entry was granted from Congress to the President in 1952 by law, and Congress is free to change it if they so vote. Now, to change that would require 2/3 majority to override the sure veto from the President, which would make it highly unlikely the law would change. But you can't just use the Judicial branch to selectively override the Executive branch in this instance.
Is it because he hates/fears/whatever muslims becuause they are muslims...or it is because the countries in question lack the infrastructure/ability/government controls to vet its citizens when they issue ID cards...
Look at the laptop ban...initially evryone thought he was targeting nations he didn't like..then it came out that some "terrorist groups" figured out how to hide bombs in laptops in a way that make them undectable by security scanners..
Note, I'm not taking sides...just trying to understand what's really going on....
1. We don't have to surveil them.
You're insane if you think terrorist organizations in one country can only affect us if we allow travel directly. Plus, zero of the 9/11 attackers came from countries that are the subject of the ban.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
... what?
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.
I... what?
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries. Maybe you think that's wrong, but at the same time, Japan has never had to have some of the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values.
Japan is also very comfortable with openly discriminating against foreigners, unlike the US. To their credit, they're fairly universal about it, they don't care if you're from a Muslim country, the US, Europe, Africa, or the next Asian island over, they still don't want you there.
Additionally, last time I checked, Japan has zero military bases in Muslim countries. Which, if you recall, was a major reason the US was attacked on 9/11. Japan evidently sent a token force to Iraq after 9/11 of 600 soldiers to Iraq for two years or so. I'm sure after toppling the US, Europe, Russia, and China, the islamic extremist leaders plan on punishing Japan, but it's obviously not a high priority. Japan doesn't care much about the middle east and the feeling is mutual. That's not something the US could emulate.
Intent is SOMETIMES a factor but it is not a core pillar. In other words, intent often changes the "degree" or "tone" of a ruling but doesn't change the actual ruling. In the case of "killing someone" intent can result in a reduced (or no) sentence but that doesn't mean "not guilty". Sometimes intent doesn't matter at all. If I steal $1,000,000 to cure cancer it doesn't matter. I stole $1,000,000. Intent only matters if the intent is directly relevant to the issue at hand, which is a very complicated analysis.
I think it is a stretch to think that intent matters in this context. The Government grants people the right to enter the US that have no right to. Withholding that permission should not require a basis/intent in the same way that not donating money to charity doesn't require a proactive defense/intent. If anything LETTING PEOPLE IN should require an adequate basis (which there are many).
Additionally, when intent is a factor BOTH SIDES of the "INTENT" situation must be explored. Trump, correctly, states that this travel ban is intended to stop potential terrorists until a proper screening system can be developed. Just because "people" disagree that this is Trumps intent doesn't make it so. Imagine if an executive wanted to do a travel ban to protect the county in the future for the exact same purpose but now can't because of a bad judgement aimed not at the actual order but the person's "suspected intent".
Plus I think you are confusing motivations and intent. It is very clear what Trump's intent is: block people from certain countries and backgrounds from entering the USA. The question is if that the *motivation* for that intent is "to protect the country" or "to spite certain cultures" and the Supreme Court should care less about the motivation and maybe think about if the intent matters.
"Everything else can be handled by the states."
Yeah, like the definition of who is and is not a person. That worked out really well didn't it?
If you're referring to the "3/5ths Clause", that was to limit the ability of the southern states to use their slave populations to inflate their representation in Congress and thus their ability to block the abolition of slavery.
US slavery that was fought for official legal recognition by a black man, Anthony Johnson, who became the first legally-recognized (by King Henry's Colonial Courts) slave *owner* in the US, setting the legal precedent for slavery to become a US institution. This all happened decades before any of the Founding Fathers were born.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Religious oppression is a classic example of genuine refugee status. This "cry for the poor war orphans" nonsense is just a temporary run around the rest of immigration law. It's bound to create nasty consequences later on when that temporary status expires.
Abused Xians and Kurds are the sort of refugees that can stay permanently. Garden variety Syrians are not. This is a key detail that a lot of people fail to acknowledge.
A number of somewhat unrelated things got lumped together in the travel ban.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I view the issue less in terms of terrorism than religious fundementalism. Liberals are fine to eviscerate Xians for this kind of thing and then give Muslims a free pass or even glorify their 3th century nonsense. We shouldn't be going out of our way to import theocrats into a secular society.
I never associated the hijab with muslims at large until liberals started virtue signalling about it. All the ones I've ever known are impossible to pick out of the crowd. Less convenient for virtue signalling.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.