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.

Comments

Does this predict ruling?

[imrahilj]

Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want an idea what the ruling will be? Look at any previous SCOTUS ruling on the Executive power to control the boarders. Hint, they have always sided with the Executive.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[registrations_suck]

Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.

No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[_Sharp'r_]

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.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[imrahilj]

I've been wondering about whether the nationwide injunctions would come up. It's not something I had seen before, and I had the impression that federal courts other than SCOTUS generally didn't have nationwide jurisdiction, but I am also not a lawyer.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dwillden]

The appeals courts exceeded jurisprudence in citing his campaign speeches as some how changing the clear language of the Executive orders. What he said as a candidate during a campaign cannot be taken as indicating his intent once elected when the wording of executive orders issued is clear in it's limitations and specifics. The first ban did have a problem in the exception it provided for persecuted religious minorities from those nations made it a defacto ban on the religion from those countries.

But the second ban removed that exception, making it a blanket ban on citizens from those countries regardless of faith.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this exact issue.\

Except no, the Supreme Court has not already ruled on this exact issue. That's why they're taking the case, because they haven't ruled on it.

Haven't you read the lower court opinions, which go into great detail summarizing what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past?

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.

And that is what the President explicitly does not have the authority to do.

And that is the question before the court: is this travel ban in fact actually designed to block Muslims per se?

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[JoeyRox]

The only thing that stands in Trump's way is that pesky first amendment, which prohibits the government establishment of religion. This was the basis for the Fourth Circuit's court stay against the ban. The notion that a President is allowed to use his power to limit immigration irrespective of his violation of other parts of the constitution in doing so is Bowling Green-type fairytale.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

In a way it is surprising because there has been little dissent among the lower courts.

I suspect this is because the lower courts have placed themselves in the ridiculous position of declaring that a order enacted under one President would be Constitutional while that very same order enacted under another President would be Unconstitutional.

Further, That an order enacted by a President would be Constitutional until it is discovered that the President made that order with a pejorative mindset.

Either the executive can make this kind of order or they cannot. The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[nomadic]

Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[es330td]

In a way it is surprising because there has been little dissent among the lower courts.

I think this is because the appeals were made to judges/courts of a similar mindset.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

And even if he did say these things after becoming President, it still creates the ridiculous situation where the order is Constitutional if he kept his mouth shut, but later, after having expressed those opinion, it would suddenly be Unconstitutional.

The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[plague911]

INAL But intent does actually have a legal weight. This is actually well documented. You should have been aware of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

Yes this is a reference to the legislative branch, however, there are cross implications.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[oh_my_080980980]

No. Since they are not hearing argument until the fall, they left the ban in place. But, "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately" tells you how those justices will likely rule.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dougdonovan]

if you are not legal to be in the US, stay out.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MightyMartian]

The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.

That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

I'm not convinced, even in the Legislative process.

Does that not create a situation where a law or Order is OK as long as the "intent" remains undiscovered? Isn't that situation a complete Cluster Fuck where established law could suddenly become Unconstitutional, even after having previously being found Constitutional?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[plague911]

You use stronger words than I would, but yes if new evidence of intent were to be discovered that could alter the constitutionality. I would wager it would have to be STRONG evidence for the court to rehear it.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dwillden]

And that might block the first EO because he did put in the exception for religious minorities suffering persecution in those countries, which by interpretation then turns it into a ban on Muslims from the six nations. But the second one eliminated any reference to religion, It's a flat ban on the immigrants from those six nations, no first amendment issues involved.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[fustakrakich]

Scalia was kind of famous for his regard of 'intent'.

We don't have to be convinced, the judges already are. Aren't conspiracy charges based on intent? I'll admit that divining intent is a bit of voodoo, but the judges are rolling with it. We decide how it goes with our votes.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.

To me this smacks of the logic used in Hate Crimes. Someone who is killed by reason of some prohibited "hate" is just as dead as someone killed for hate that is not "prohibited".

I believe the legislation/orders should stand on their own.

The only other possible scheme would be "disparate impact". I have problems with that in general, but with respect to a travel ban, then any ban that affects any country that has any overwhelming majority of a demographic could be found to have a disparate impact.

For instance, if a ban was placed on nation for reasons of their international conduct, but that nation has a majority of Buddhists, then you could say it was an illegal ban on Buddhists as it has a disparate impact on Buddhists.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[luis_a_espinal]

The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.

That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.

This. People who ignore it are doing so with full intent of ignoring such crucial and important details.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[fustakrakich]

Hey c'mon! Terrorism is like any other business. When domestic sources can't meet demand, you gotta import.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[ranton]

Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.

No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.

Since they won't be hearing the case until the Fall, their ruling later this year is nearly inconsequential as it pertains to this travel ban. The ban will be mostly over by then. This Supreme Court case will probably only have an effect on future executive actions.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[bobbied]

Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.

All you can read into this is that the court pretty much already knows that the portions of the travel ban they have specifically allowed have zero chance being upheld (i.e. the appeals court's decisions are wrong)... Well, that and the court realizes that there is at least SOME urgency to these portions being reversed.

There still remains significant questions to be argued and decided, but it's apparent from this decision that the Court will be reversing the lower courts in some significant ways.

In short, the administration apparently has some good arguments on the Travel Ban thing and it's obvious to the Supreme Court that the lower courts have made significant errors.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[moeinvt]

The circuit courts used a wild stretch of the imagination to conflate a ban based on national origin with a ban based on religion. Trump said something during his campaign and the courts used that to infer that this ban was somehow based on religious background? This, despite the fact that there are more than a billion Muslims from dozens of countries all over the world who were unaffected and there was no exception for non-Muslims?

They are supposed to rule on the law itself. The President has the power or he doesn't. Guessing what he might be thinking as the basis for a court ruling is ridiculous.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

While this may seem laudable, it seem to essentially a form of double jeopardy.

You commit a crime. You are prosecuted under a local ordnance, then you are prosecuted under a state law, then you are prosecuted under a federal law. What's next? Hauled before the Hague?

I have real problem with that.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[bobbied]

Given that SCOTUS partially revived the ban, does that mean that they are predisposed to a more lenient view of the ban than lower courts? How much can we read into this.

No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.

I disagree. The tradition of the court is to NOT to preemptively reverse a decision before the case is actually argued unless there is a high probability that the appeal will be reversed and/or there is irreversible damage taking place that cannot be reversed before the court can hear the case in full.

On both of these reasons, the decision clearly shows that the court believes the lower courts have ruled in error. Of course, this decision *could* be reversed, but only three justices have decanted with this order (Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch), to varying degrees. Unless there is some novel argument produced during the argument phase, I doubt we will see a shift in the court's final opinion).

Anyway, it won't matter. The Travel ban goes into place immediately with only the narrow exception of people having an existing close relationship with somebody already in the country. It will stay in effect until the court actually rules, which could be a year from today, but no sooner than six months.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Trondheim]

"Half of the Supreme Court will knock it out knowing it will kill international trade. The other half either installed or paid off by Russians will follow through with TRUMP's directions."

Rolls eyes....

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[liquid_schwartz]

Yes, intent does. The Constitution strictly forbids religious tests. If an Administration is attempting to use its powers to implement a religious test, then it has violated the First Amendment.

Someone forgot to tell that to Bernie Sanders.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[guises]

The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.

You're confusing motive and intent, intent factors heavily into our legal system. Intent is: "What was this order trying to accomplish?" Motive is: "Why was this order made in the first place?"

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[liquid_schwartz]

Can we help it if the world most likely to be a terrorist countries are all Muslim? To a sentient person that is a clue.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[x_t0ken_407]

Erasing erroneous mod

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[GLMDesigns]

The issue is this - is this EO within the scope of powers granted to the President of the United States.
YES.

It's been so since the beginning and NEVER overruled.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Rockoon]

Doesn't matter w.r.t. ban on a religion. What needs to happen is new law written to at least allow the possibility for religious bans.

Some ideas are too dangerous to welcome.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dbrueck]

I dunno, the EO doesn't mention religion and it doesn't affect the vast majority of Muslims - approximately one billion Muslims around the world (Google says there are 1.2b Muslims and that the total population of the affected countries is about 180 million), and under Obama when there was a temporary and partial ban on some visitors from those same countries it didn't seem to run afoul of the First Amendment. On top of that, there's also some debate on how much those rights should apply to non-US-citizens anyway, which could drastically reduce the number of people it affects. All of this undermines the argument that it is targeting a religion.

The ban itself is probably stupid (but then again I obviously don't have access to all of the US terrorism intel). It was certainly stupid of Trump to bring religion to it at all during the campaign or since. But at this point the arguments against it on any sort of religious basis seem pretty tenuous. The religious argument now boils down to, "well, despite what the order says and despite what Trump says these days, we all know better and know that in reality this is religiously motivated" which is a weak argument and tough to back up.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[kenh]

No. It means that it sees that there is a significant constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. In the end, it could very well reject the ban.

And that issue is... what, exactly? The lower courts never identified one, they blocked it based on "mean things" the candidate said. The injunctions that are now lifted were not based on constitutional issues.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Rockoon]

The war on Trump is a war on thinking (no I am not saying Trump is a good thinker.) It is always about what Trump supposedly believes/etc, which makes it really hard to "refute" aside from arguing it with the argument I am using right now. There is no fact you can bring up which will ever refute the "what he really thinks" arguments other than that the whole fucking thing is a bullshit fallacy about nefarious motive instead of nefarious actions.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[kenh]

So could something that would otherwise be illegal become legal if it was enacted for the right reason?

You've already established the reverse - something that is legal is rendered illegal because it was enacted for the wrong reason.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MightyMartian]

You would need to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[JoeyRox]

It didn't require any wild imagination - the court used Trump's own words.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[orgelspieler]

I wonder if there's a lot of overlap between "people who are worried about being killed by a refugee terrorist" and "people who buy Powerball tickets." It wouldn't surprise me. People really don't have any idea about things involving low probabilities, especially when the payoff (or cost) is huge.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[asylumx]

What needs to happen is new law written to at least allow the possibility for religious bans.

That is a dangerous idea.

Some ideas are too dangerous to welcome.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[JoeyRox]

It's not a question of what the EO references - it's what Trump's intention is, and he made that intention clear with his own words. The court is certainly going to consider that in their decision.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Rockoon]

That is a dangerous idea.

Yes. Nobody said it wasn't a catch-22.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[budgenator]

The first ban did have a problem in the exception it provided for persecuted religious minorities from those nations made it a defacto ban on the religion from those countries.

So if the Muslims commit Genocide against an ethnic minority who are predominately Coptic Christians, we can't help them because they have a religion?

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[orgelspieler]

Yes, it's clearly a "wild stretch of the imagination" when a president campaigns on a promise, and then tries to keep that promise, even though his own vice-president said it was "offensive and unconstitutional".

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[ranton]

Macron, is that you? Terrorism is a fact of life now and you better get used to it because we will do nothing, eh?

Doing nothing about terrorism is not the same thing as accurately assessing its impact. You can both fight terrorism and not be irrationally afraid of it at the same time.

Terrorism is not a problem because leaders aren't doing enough to fight it. Terrorism is only a problem because leaders are stoking the flames of fear. If our general society cared as much about terrorist related deaths as we do about automobile related deaths, there would be no incentive for these groups to attack us in the first place.

The people who fear terrorism are far more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I think most people would be far more for some type of ban IF it involved the actual countries that, say, where involved in the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia is the "main offender" with their exporting of Wahhabism. We should have included UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon. Many of the attacks are by second-generation immigrants. My theory is that the original family members flee whatever, and move to areas with other immigrants of the same lineage. The second generation don't comprehend just how bad it really was, so they glamorize the "good parts" of their parents old life. This is just human nature, to forget the bad and only remember the good. So, the 2nd gen get pulled into the likes of ISIS.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[guises]

It is very clear what Trump's intent is: block people from certain countries and backgrounds from entering the USA.

This is what the order states. The intent is what that order is trying to accomplish: "to protect the country" or "to spite certain cultures." The motivation is why this order was made - there's an assumption that the motivation is a fear/hatred of Muslims, but while motivation can act as evidence it doesn't make a crime.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[kenh]

The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban".

There is no "religious test" in the second (or even the first) Executive Order, there are only comments made by Candidate Trump.

What SCOTUS essentially said was the injunction was incorrect - the lower court based it's decision on the legislation based on things not in the legislation, not the actual wording of the legislation.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[plague911]

Yes, but again I would wager it would have to be STRONG evidence for the court to rehear it.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MightyMartian]

The issue, again, isn't the wording the Executive Orders, but with the INTENT. SCOTUS as of yet has not decided whether the intent was a Muslim ban, and that will have to wait for the fall.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[kenh]

The only thing that stands in Trump's way is that pesky first amendment, which prohibits the government establishment of religion. This was the basis for the Fourth Circuit's court stay against the ban.

And SCOTUS rejected that basis when it threw out the stay... The "Establishment Clause" argument is based not on the legislation but on the campaign rhetoric of candidate Trump, the Executive Order doesn't even have the word Muslim in it.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[mysidia]

You're confusing motive and intent, intent factors heavily into our legal system. Intent is: "What was this order trying to accomplish?"

The legality depends on what specific actions are being taken, not on intended or anticipated future consequences.
For example: Passing what turns out to be a ban on guns is still a 2nd amendment violation, if it prevents or impedes a single citizen acquiring a firearm, even if the intended affect of the bill is to save lives and reduce violence by making guns harder to obtain, and complete ban was not in the mind of the authors.

Intent is used only to help disambiguate what specific actions are being taken when interpreting the meaning of the bill. When possible the courts Must pick the interpretation of the intent of all laws or orders in a manner that the result is constitutional and/or legal, if it is possible for there to be a constitutional and legal intent of the law or order.

That is.... the courts are there to interpret the laws and orders. The Courts are NOT there to second-guess decisions of the executive or elected officials.

The only time they can strike down an order is by showing there's no possible legal basis, and there's no possible lawful/constitutional interpretation of the rule, law, or order. And even then, the Judiciary is just one branch of government with very limited power over other branches other than some specific limited checks and balances --- E.G. There can't "really" be a dispute between the president and the courts, since the Executive technically has the authority to proceed against their orders.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[kenh]

But, "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately" tells you how those justices will likely rule.

Yes, with the Constitution.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dbrueck]

Well, no, it *is* a question of what the EO references. The Court is ruling on the legality of the EO as it is currently written, because that's really what they have jurisdiction to do.

For them to broaden the scope to things like their perception of intent would be to wildly exceed their authority and destroy what little remains of the checks and balances, making the judiciary branch way too powerful. I mean, while they are at it, they could start to oversee the Legislative branch too, right? Strike down some law, not because the law was bad, but because the Senator that sponsored it was caught saying that he didn't care about the bill itself and just wanted it to pass because it had some unrelated stuff attached to the bill that would be beneficial for his constituents. :)

Regardless, my point wasn't one of whether or not intent would be considered to any degree, it was just that basing an argument on someone else's intent puts you in an extremely weak position, that's all. Even if your view on an issue is the "correct" view, if you arguments are based on the other side's intent, then you just have a much harder time making your case.

I mean, even with a recording of someone saying something you can never really "prove" intent, so the most you can do is get the ruling body to agree that making an assumption is okay and that your assumption is reasonable and the one they should agree with. And then on top of that, it's too easy for the other party to (truthfully or not) say they changed their mind along the way, that they heard from the people, that they misspoke, that they now understand the issue better, etc., etc., etc. Again, it could all be total lies, but it'd all serve to weaken your case - if you've pinned your argument on the other guy's motivations, then it's a much easier position for him to defend.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[KGIII]

It's kinda too bad that we won't all stop responding in the politics threads with very slight ties to tech.

I realize I am not helping.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Darinbob]

Intent is key though because of laws passed by congress and signed by previous administrations. The executive is not a dictatorship. Executive actions have to follow the law.

There are politics too. They way I've seen it since I can remember, one party accuses the executive of exceeding authority while the other party complains that the executive doesn't have enough authority. Both parties are full short sighted morons who can't understand that actions done today that favor the party in power will favor the opposition party in the future.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[lgw]

The Constitution strictly forbids religious tests.

Well, the text of the Constitution doesn't, though there's lots of later precedent. The issue is less clear to me because Islam is a political philosophy as well as a religion.

I have no problem, constitutionally, if the president wants to ban Communists or Fascists. To the subset of Muslims determined to be a problem, the religion includes an overriding political goal. Ideally, we ban people based on that political stance - I think that would be great - somehow without being over-broad in the ban. A ban on the "opposed to our core ideals" politics, not the religion. That seems a narrow needle to thread, however.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

Are you suggesting that Judicial Abuse is any less egregious if suffered by someone considered by society to be worse?

Kinda goes against the whole equal protection thing, no?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[bobbied]

The three dissenting justices clearly support the ban in it's entirety, while apparently the rest favor the bulk of the Executive Order with some minor exceptions brought up by the lower court's previous orders.

The Court is obviously going to reinstate Trump's Second order, nearly in full force, if not in it's entirety. Unless something comes up that swings the majority of justices away from their current positions between now and oral arguments. I don't think it looks likely. We will, at a minimum, have a ban except for a small class of entries by people who have established relationships with the USA. Trump may make gains in the future, but he's unlikely to lose ground on this issue now.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Darinbob]

We are banning countries that had nothing to do with exporting terrorism and being quite friendly with countries that do have a record of exporting terrorism. It's hypocritical. What's really going on here is that there was a desire to keep the compaign "promise" to ban travel from all muslims majority nations, except that reality intruded. So the the ban applies to a few poor countries but not on economically vital countries, but still allowing the president to claim he upheld the promise.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[JoeyRox]

Except that it wasn't only "campaign rhetoric". Trump made statements after he become POTUS.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

An EO is not a crime. Hate Criems are mentioned to illustrate a parallel logic of Hate Crimes

In all examples of a Hate Crime, it is all circumstances, a crime. The Intent merely mitigates the punishment. It does not turn a crime into a non-crime.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Triklyn]

well, i forget the numbers, but under obama a nation with 10 percent persecuted christians, has 99 percent muslim refugee rates. so the christians weren't getting through even though by all rights, they should be the predominant class to get through in the first place.

there's a reason why trump said we should help those poor christians. because the obama refugee rates were lopsided to all hell.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[rahvin112]

I wouldn't call 2 years of vetting "letting in the bad guys", that's more scrutiny than someone with top secret classification gets. Your insinuation is asinine, just because you don't know what scrutiny people are getting doesn't mean people aren't being vetted properly.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[budgenator]

as opposed to leaving it to states where everyone from the cops to the judges to the juries were inclined to let the "good ol' boys" that burned black churches to the ground lynched some poor black fellow looking at a white women get away with it.

now just substitute "Coptic Christians" for "blacks in the southern states", "Muslims" for "good ol' boys" and "predominately Muslim Countries" for "sates"

as opposed to leaving it to "predominately Muslim Countries" where everyone from the cops to the judges to the juries were inclined to let the "Muslims" that burned Coptic Christians churches to the ground and lynched some poor Coptic Christians fellows.

and the hypocrisy become obvious.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

Some would call it a well founded and empirically supported fear.

And the frequency is irrelevant. When it was found that Tylenol bottles were poisoned, literally billions of tablets were recalled. But only a few bottles were ever found.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[greythax]

While I am not a big fan of hate crime laws, which to me walks a tightrope over racism, I would like to remind you that the law has codified many types of murder/manslaughter, all based around intent. Some states have gone as far as making special murder laws with harsher punishments if the victim was a child or even a policeman. While hate crime legislation isn't ideal, it is consistent with laws on the books. Personally, I think a murderer is a murderer.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[guises]

The legality depends on what specific actions are being taken, not on intended or anticipated future consequences.

This is not true in general, mens rea is a well established factor in establishing guilt, but I understand that you're talking specifically about bills / laws / executive orders here. I'm no expert on this, but... intent certainly does matter for bills / laws / executive orders too. This is easy to see in any discussion of a law old enough that the original authors can't be consulted - endless arguments over what the law says vs. what the law intended. There are many instances where language has changed over time and people try to figure out the meaning of a given word at the time the law was written, etc.

This claim, "When possible the courts Must pick the interpretation of the intent of all laws or orders in a manner that the result is constitutional and/or legal, if it is possible for there to be a constitutional and legal intent of the law or order." sounds pretty crazy. I can't say for sure that it's wrong, but I suspect that it's wrong. What you're suggesting is that when a bill is unconstitutional, rather than rejecting the bill the court must twist the meaning of the bill until they have something which is not unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous that result may be.

I don't think that's what you really meant.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[sycodon]

I forget which president it was who said something along the lines of, "They've made their decision, now let them enforce it".

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Skuld-Chan]

Trump said many things on his campaign (which btw - hasn't ended), and kept saying those things that the courts used against him repeatedly in interviews and on Twitter. Who would have thought what you say matters?

Some pro advice for Trump - if you're involved in a lawsuit or being investigated of a crime stop saying stuff - because the prosecution will use that against you.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jittles]

The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban".

There is no "religious test" in the second (or even the first) Executive Order, there are only comments made by Candidate Trump.

What SCOTUS essentially said was the injunction was incorrect - the lower court based it's decision on the legislation based on things not in the legislation, not the actual wording of the legislation.

Did you read the first executive order? It absolutely had a religious test in it, and was worded in such a way to never mention Islam but to specifically exclude people who were Islamic. I have not read the second executive order, so I cannot comment on it. The first order, however, specifically said it would allow religious minorities to seek asylum under the order. All of the countries affected by the ban are predominately Muslim. It specifically banned people who were not religious minorities from entering the US, even if they already had a valid visa and had been living in the US for some time./P.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Plus1Entropy]

This decision set aside the question of whether the ban constitutes religious discrimination, which they will consider in October.

I think what the Supreme Court is saying is that the President has the power to impose such a ban, assuming that it is not otherwise unconstitutional. Then in a few months they will consider whether this particular ban is constitutional or not.

If they do end up striking down Trump's ban, they don't want it to set a general precedent restricting the constitutional powers of the President.

That is my understanding at least.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Shotgun]

I believe that was Andrew Jackson.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Plus1Entropy]

They will not just rule on "how it is written". They will also rule on "how it is implemented".

If they rule that the EO "as written" is constitutional, then the question will become was the EO executed in such a way that agrees with "how it was written".

I feel like Dr. Evil with all the "air quotes".

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Plus1Entropy]

They didn't reject that basis. They specifically put that consideration aside for this ruling, but said they would consider the religious discrimination argument in October.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[guises]

Some would call it a well founded and empirically supported fear.

Yes, this is why motivation doesn't factor into criminality: people can't be faulted for having different opinions. Only intent factors into criminality.

I don't know what you're talking about with the frequency thing. Who brought up frequency?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[speedplane]

That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.

Consider killing someone in self-defense. You may initially be prosecuted for the crime of killing someone, but if after the fact you develop evidence showing you acted in self defense, you just made the illegal legal. Intent is a big deal in law. If it weren't, judges could enact laws that discriminate against certain groups and claim they were doing it for another reason altogether. This component of the law is not controversial.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[greythax]

And meanwhile, in the real world, we like to use the courts to protect the CONSTITUTIONALITY of our laws. There are a lot of sneaky ways to deny people their rights, and getting at the reason something was enacted is PRECISELY what the courts are charged to do. Especially considering almost nobody from these countries were involved in actual terrorism . I think his motives are quite clear, as he stated, and I believe that they violate the first amendment, regardless of whether he has the power to issue such proclamations.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MachineShedFred]

How can he pack the court when there was only one vacancy, which is now filled? I don't see any of the liberal-leaning justices retiring in the next 3.5 years. Best that Trump could hope for, is the untimely death of one of the elder associate justices (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg). However, I would hope that he would have the common sense to not pack the court and instead keep the balance - other than a few decisions, the current balance has served the country quite well.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[moeinvt]

There are roughly 1.8 Billion Muslims in the world. This ban affects six countries.

Country|Population in millions
Iran 79.11
Syria 18.5
Somalia 10.79
Iraq 36.42
Yemen 26.83
Libya 6.278
Total 177.93

Yes, Trump talked about a "Muslim ban" when he was candidate Trump, but how can any reasonable person interpret this order as a "Muslim ban" when it affects 10% of Muslims worldwide?

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[ganjadude]

it actually does legally speaking change everything

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[ganjadude]

the only words that matter though are the ones written on the E.O.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dbrueck]

Ok, sure, but neither "how it is written" nor "how it is implemented" try to encompass the nebulous question of whether the authors were being big meanies or religious bigots or whatever when they wrote it. An earlier poster suggested, "It's not a question of what the EO references - it's what Trump's intention is" but that's simply not true, no matter how much some people wish it was.

As in, discerning Trump's intentions matters more in other situations (e.g. that's the sort of thing voters should consider when evaluating a candidate before putting him/her into power, haha) but not so much in the situation of the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of an executive order. The justices may personally feel that the reasoning behind the EO is boneheaded or in poor judgement or even mean, but it can be all of those things and still fall short of being illegal or unconstitutional.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MachineShedFred]

There was only ever one trial for the one crime. It was just in a Federal court, with a United States Attorney prosecuting, rather than in a county court with a district attorney prosecuting.

Not double jeopardy at all. Nobody was ever prosecuted a second time for the same crime unless a mistrial was declared.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[KGIII]

This will continue to get piles of posts, in perpetuity. We do like our drama.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[JoeyRox]

Not according to the legal principal of legislative intent.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jedidiah]

The countries from the original ban came straight from the Obama administration. Half of them are in tatters. They are places that make Lebanon and Egypt look respectable.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[will_die]

One part to read in to it is that that ruled on it. Historically on this limited time executive orders they have just ignored them.
That they allowed it and then said they would hear it in a few months I interpret as them expecting the EO to be done.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I mean technically the First Amendment only references Congress and says nothing about the Executive Branch.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Non-US persons are not under the jurisdiction of the 1st amendment. Also, please quote the portion that strictly forbids religious tests.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Non-citizens in many circumstances can have constitutional rights. The descriptive legal term you are looking for is US Persons, and Non-US Persons.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Please quote the law you are so certain exists, so we can show you how it doesn't apply.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

One of the things that helps you create rational persuasive arguments, is understanding the arguments of the other side. What is the primary rational for the restrictions created by the EO in question? Answer that question and you will see why your argument is poor.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

The EO doesn't mention religion. That's the answer to your religious test question.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

But the divined intent of candidate Trump doesn't create the law. The Executive Order does. Ignoring that fundamental fact will leave you very disappointed when the SC rules on this case.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

But Muslims from 47 odd countries representing hundreds of millions of people had no restrictions at all. Your argument fails.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Except the Administration stated last week that the EO would go into effect 72 hours after the Court decides the case.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

The decision was unanimous to end most of the injunction. Three justices dissented, stating that the entire injunction should be lifted.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MightyMartian]

Legislative intent is the purview of the courts, so why would you assert that somehow the Executive is immune from such review over the use of its own statutory instruments?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[david_thornley]

Rats, misclicked on the moderation dropdown.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[david_thornley]

The reason people attribute attitudes to Trump that he may not have is that the guy doesn't make it clear what he thinks. Typically, someone will take something Trump said, apply some plausible reasoning, and get a conclusion about what Trump was saying. Someone else will do the same to come up with a different conclusion, and yet another person will argue that Trump didn't mean what he said. To refute "what he really thinks" arguments, all you have to do is come up with quotes and reasons to believe otherwise, and usually that's impossible.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

They're taking the case because lower court rulings are in conflict with precedent and the law.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[david_thornley]

According to the Constitution, all border and naturalization issues are the responsibility of Congress, and the President can only exert authority he gets from Congress, which under any possible application of the First means he can't discriminate based on religion.

The President actually has very little power of his own. The President is commander-in-chief of the national armed forces, can issue pardons and reprieves, and can fill in vacancies that happen when the Senate is out of session. The President has the power to require written opinions from heads of executive departments, but Congress has to create the departments. The President's ability to nominate officials and make treaties is dependent on the Senate. Most of the power of the President is through executing powers delegated by Congress.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[slack_justyb]

The legality depends on what specific actions are being taken

No that would be the constitutionality of the action. The action can be Constitutional but within the domain of the Legislative versus the Executive, as an example. If you speak solely to the actionable items, you are asking, "Is this allowed in our land?" Legality looks at a broader range and depends on the context. Good example using what you said:

Passing what turns out to be a ban on guns is still a 2nd amendment violation, if it prevents or impedes a single citizen acquiring a firearm

Not exactly, citizens cannot purchase a mortar shell and it's launcher and one could argue the technicalities to how it's uses gun powder just like guns. There's a limited domain on what the 2A allows and depending on the context, you weigh the options of public good versus public being able to launch mortar shells. Now granted that's a really big jump from hand gun to mortar shells, but you can move the line around and find all kinds of different arguments pro/con and all different kinds of judgement. The point being that a lot of people like to think of law stating something like, "if it prevents or impedes a single citizen acquiring a firearm" but rarely is law so black and white. Laws could very well prevent people from buying some guns and run in what we may think as violations of 2A, but given the context of the ruling the Judges at the time may have found ample rationale at the time for such a thing. I mean, how do you think the Judicial squares today with Justices of olden time supporting slavery?

When possible the courts Must pick the interpretation of the intent of all laws or orders in a manner that the result is constitutional and/or legal, if it is possible for there to be a constitutional and legal intent of the law or order.

If only cases were so binary in nature. Also I should point out...

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is usually taken to be the thing that enables Judicial review. But I should point out, it's not spelled out there and you want to wax a bunch of lawyers in school into the right mood, you bring this up and cite Federalist 78. You really seem to be arguing something that's forever debatable but somewhere mixed in there, you feel the debate has already been settled, especially with...

The Courts are NOT there to second-guess decisions of the executive or elected officials.

The Judicial is the third branch of government and serves as a check for the other two. Just like the other two serve as a check to Judicial. So while you state an opinion that has existed since the founding of "just governments", it is also a point that's been debated for time immemorial. There isn't a more correct answer in this debate either. It's a matter of how one reads "separation of powers" and how far that word "check" goes.

There can't "really" be a dispute between the president and the courts, since the Executive technically has the authority to proceed against their orders.

Again, that's a single school of thought about the position courts have in this country, which you shouldn't confuse for the only position that courts have in this country. There's nothing wrong with anything you just said other than your idea that it is the only way things can possible run, which is entirely untrue. Intent can be used in the manner that is befitting the court. That's why things like appeal and review exist. It's the acknowledgment that there is no one way to run the Judicial and that "jus

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dywolf]

so your stance is that the president has the power to discriminate against a particular religion?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dywolf]

how about the presidents own clear language....WHILE HIS LAWYERS WERE ARGUING IT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
http://www.economist.com/blogs...

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jittles]

But Muslims from 47 odd countries representing hundreds of millions of people had no restrictions at all. Your argument fails.

That's irrelevant. The order specifically allowed non-muslim refugees but refused access to already vetted and approved Muslim refugees strictly because of their religion. How is that not a religious test?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[AK Marc]

The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.

If I shoot (and kill) an intruder in my home after he has broken in and shot me first and is aiming for another shot, it's not "murder" anywhere in the US. If I shoot a stranger on the street who is no danger to me, it's murder everywhere in the US.

Circumstances, including motivation, do *ALWAYS* affect legality.

In this case, any restriction on freedom must come with a reason. If the president were to enact a 4 p.m. curfew because that would be a good economic stimulus for mass transit, that would be shot down because the reason does not justify the harm. Passing a travel ban requires balancing the goal with the harm. This necessarily requires looking at the motivation. If one could prove that the reason is invalid, then it would necessarily prove the harm to be unjustified. The goal is increased security, does the executive order do so in a well crafted manner? No. It fails because it exempts Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from and who funded 9/11. So the order is trivially illegal, as it doesn't meet its stated goal, so no harm could be justified.

Further, the stated goal in the Executive Order is a lie, as Trump has, in official statements, indicated that the order is a lie, and the real reason for the ban is to ban Muslims. Thus, the goal is de facto illegal, making the order illegal.

The reasons matter in such matters. Indonesia has more Muslims than any country in the ban. So why would they not be banned if the goal was banning Muslims? Again, even if the overtly racists reasons were legal, the courts should still find the order illegal as it doesn't conform to the stated goal.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dywolf]

yeah, just ignore the crazy orange cheeto's rants on twitter...DURING the SCOTUS hearing.....
idiot.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[AK Marc]

That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.

Yes. And the courts have done so. The initial test is often on the stated intent, and presumed effect. Then the later tests are on actual effect. "Separate but equal" has never been overturned. It just had a corollary of "Separate is inherently unequal" added to it. If someone could prove a means of having separate be demonstrably equal, then we'd be right back to 1800s segregation, without violating any previous rulings.

Effectively, the first test of segregation was whether segregation was inherently illegal. It is not, not then, and still not now. Whether an institutional segregation could achieve equal results was tested later, and the implementation used at the time was greatly lacking.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[AK Marc]

The crimes are all separate. Illegal discharge of a firearm (local ordinance) isn't murder (state law), which isn't kidnapping across state lines (federal), so I have no problem with a kidnapper who kills the victim to be tried for the multiple various crimes.

By your logic, What do you do if a bank robber kills a teller? They left the getaway car parked illegally outside, so they get a parking ticket, but no trial for murder, or bank robbery? Your suggestion is insane.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MightyMartian]

The EO doesn't, but the authors of the EO did, and that raises constitutionality. I don't why this is so hard to accept, but intent is the very core of judicial proceedings.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

It's hard to accept because campaign statements don't carry the force of law. It's a very simple concept.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Legislative intent only comes into play in the courts when the law is unclear. There is nothing unclear about the EO or, for instance, 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Because religion isn't a criteria used to restrict entry, duh. Like I said, your argument fails.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[flopsquad]

The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.

Whelp. So that is a syntactically valid combination of English words, but it turns out the idea it expresses is exactly wrong.

If your statement is taken generally ("The mindset of [a President] has no bearing on the Constitutionality of [an] order]"), then both 1st and 14th Amendment jurisprudence are against you.

Discriminatory intent is, in fact, *the* necessary element that transforms
-a facially neutral government action-
-that imposes a disproportionate burden on a protected class-
-from a perfectly valid (even though disproportionately impactful) action-
-into a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(Note: We'll get to the 1st Amendment further below, since that's what is directly in play with the Travel Ban. We start at the 14th because it's a long-historied branch of case law that SCOTUS continually leans on as analogous in its 1st Amendment "intent" decisions.)

See Washington v. Davis; Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney; et al.

Quote from Davis: "to the extent that Palmer suggests a generally applicable proposition that legislative purpose is irrelevant in constitutional adjudication, our prior cases. . . are to the contrary.”

Quote from Hernandez v Woodward (N.D. Ill.): "Time and again over the past two decades, the Court has held that facially neutral laws may run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if they are enacted or enforced with a discriminatory intent."

Quote from Feeney: "[Discriminatory intent] implies that the decisionmaker ... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group."

To put a finer point on it, critics have for years taken the Supreme Court to task for requiring those who invoke the 14th Amendment to strike down a discriminatory law to prove discriminatory intent in its enactment or enforcement in order to strike down facially neutral government actions that nonetheless have a disparate impact. So, intent is not just *a* thing but *the* thing when it comes to striking down a government action—at least where the 14th Amendment is applicable.

Ah, but if you've read this far, you've had your hand up the entire time, just waiting to make the argument that the 14th doesn't apply to this particular Executive Order because these are non-citizens who are not on U.S. soil. (There may be other ways to bring in the 14th, but the overseas foreign nationals themselves aren't within U.S. jurisdiction so as to enjoy "the equal protection of the laws.")

Ok. But then you'd have to contend with the 1st Amendment, where Establishment Clause (and Free Exercise Clause) jurisprudence has arrived at a similar "intent" space. See Town of Greece v. Galloway; Oregon v. Smith; Lukumi v. Hialeah; et al.

Mind you that the "intent" focus of Galloway is actually a *loosening* of previous strictures on government action in the Establishment space (found in e.g. the endorsement test and the Lemon test). But evidence of actual intent will definitely still get you there. See Alito's concurrence in Galloway: "I would view this case very differently if the omission of these synagogues were intentional." That's the same Alito who today wanted to lift the stay entirely and not just partially. In other words, even the conservative stalwart still sees intent as critical to Establishment Clause questions.

Wait, you say. Should the 1st Amendment even be in play? Well, that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? It seems pretty clearly to apply, but Alito may disagree with me on that. I suppose they'll tell us this Fall.

However that's no

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[cold fjord]

The first ban did have a problem in the exception it provided for persecuted religious minorities from those nations made it a defacto ban on the religion from those countries.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the victims of genocide may not be favored over those of the group or sect committing genocide? Coming from outside the country this should not be an issue.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[fightinfilipino]

Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.

precisely stated, what the Immigration and Nationality Act states is: "Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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."

"Paragraph 2" talks about the per-country quotas. 101(a)(27) is for "Special Immigrants" (think unaccompanied minor refugees). 201(b)(2)(A)(i) sets aside visas immediately for spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens (if parents, the U.S. citizen has to be 21 or older - anchor babies are a myth). 203 outlines preference categories for family members and employment-based cases.

so, for at least persons seeking immigrant visas (looking to live in the U.S. permanently), Congress has said that the government cannot discriminate against immigrants on the basis of race, nationality, and/or place of birth, except under the sections specifically broken out.

Trump's problem is that he publicly stated the ban is against "muslims" and against persons of specific nationalities or places of birth. he is on record both pre-campaign and during presidency.

the INA DOES permit the government to bar persons who will cause harm to the U.S. from entering. but that is an entirely different issue than what the Trump admin is doing here.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[DaHat]

How can he pack the court when there was only one vacancy, which is now filled?

If Kennedy were to retire (as is rumored in some circles) it would have a similar net result.

However, I would hope that he would have the common sense to not pack the court and instead keep the balance - other than a few decisions, the current balance has served the country quite well.

You sound like a person with much fear that you may loose.

I've heard it argued that the recent Scalia seat vacancy, that the high court was crippled due to the low number of rulings they issued... that major cases could not be decided because of the 4-4 split... despite the fact that in the end, the court did eventually end up with an average number of rulings for the session.

Given this claim of a massive down-tick in the throughput of SCOTUS... all due to a single open seat... would not it be better to increase the number of seats so that even more writs of certiorari may be considered, accepted and ruled upon? We are now 'celebrating' the 80th anniversary of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm at least honest enough to see through so much of the BS of the #resistance.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[DaHat]

I wonder if anyone cares about the precedent that Republicans set by denying a sitting president to nominate a justice.

Except no one denied Obama the opportunity to nominate a justice. His name was Merrick Garland... and his nomination was rejected by the Senate via inaction... which is not a new concept... just ask John J. Crittenden, Edward King, John M. Read, Edward A. Bradford, William C. Micou, Jeremiah S. Black, & Henry Stanbery who all saw their SCOTUS nominations not receive a final up or down vote.

The more lawmakers abuse their powers the more corrupt and unsustainable the system becomes.

Does that mean you blame VP Joe Biden for creating the so called 'Biden rule' which was referenced by some in the refusal to act on the Garland nomination?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Darinbob]

Primary rationale is that a campaign promise was mde before seeing how practical it was to implement, and this is an acceptable subset of that to keep Trump supporters happy. Of course, this is from an executive that genuinely believe police are too scared to visit some parts of Manchester...

Nonet of the terrorists from 9/11 came from countries on the list, so the rationale is not to try to keep out terrorists. Most of the countries on the list are or are becoming failed states with desparate populations seeking to escape civil war or famine, so maybe the rationale is to keep out refugees?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[bingoUV]

Do you agree that even seemingly initially clear laws can run into situations when there is slight ambiguity ? Say hundreds of years later? Can there be a difference between the letter and the spirit of some law ? Are laws , or to a lesser extent executive orders, as clear as CPU instructions where there can be no dispute whatsoever ?

In case of these ambiguities, intent is typically "guessed". When judges guess intent, they legislate by proxy. Sometimes there are other proofs of intent - e.g. founding fathers of countries / drafters of constitutions have had expressed their opinion in other ways which is taken into account long after their death. In guessing intent, "spirit" of law is highlighted.

The "letter" problem is typically fixed (talking about English common law philosophy , which is becoming more and more common) : by quoting the judgement of a court in relation with original , now deemed ambiguous , law.

As far as executive statements go - the same applies to a lesser extent. The ambiguity there should be resolved by implementers / bureaucrats asking questions to the executive through established channels, or people complaining and higher bureaucrats providing more detailed guidelines as a result. But any ambiguity will have to be resolved by the "guessed" intent of the executive order by the bureaucrat / implementer of the law. Even executive orders are unlikely to be as clear as CPU instructions - though they have the advantage of typically not being needed after hundreds of years.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[RightSaidFred99]

That's not a thing. Not in the context you imply. Legislative intent is a principal used to apply meaning to laws already passed in trying to determine their intent, where the wording of the law is open to interpretation.

It does not mean "Well, I think he made the law/EO for this reason so it's Unconstitutional."

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[bingoUV]

Doesn't public discourse define / redefine / modify language? E.g. the covfefe bill (not sure if it is a law yet). If law were only using fixed language of the time the country was founded, it would be difficult to make sense of it for people of today.

Not only political campaign, even popular movies / literature routinely change language.

If language were static, dictionaries wouldn't have to add words and change the meanings of words frequently. If language is not static, how can the influencer of language , which includes public discourse and political campaign, be not a concern in any statement that is made in "language" ? This , in turn includes laws and executive orders.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[rworne]

What you're suggesting is that when a bill is unconstitutional, rather than rejecting the bill the court must twist the meaning of the bill until they have something which is not unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous that result may be.

For example: like how the Obamacare penalty isn't a tax? The intent was to call it a "mandate" and Obama outright rejected the idea it was a tax increase - so the intent was clear - until it was necessary for the SCOTUS to call it one to pass constitutional muster. So the court itself twisted the meaning against intent in this particular case.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[rworne]

There are around 50 muslim-majority countries out there. Are you suggesting the EO banned all of them?

Are there any differentiating factors other than religion that separates the ones on the EO from the rest?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[guises]

The court said that the mandate wasn't unconstitutional, because the constitution grants the government the right to tax. This is not the same thing as declaring it to be a tax. Think how the constitution protects speech, but implicitly also protects writing. Strictly speaking writing isn't speech, since it isn't spoken, but the understanding is that "speech" is that case just means communication. This doesn't mean that the court is declaring that writing is something other than writing, only that the intent of the constitution is broader than it specifies.

So some people still call the healthcare penalty a mandate, and some people call it a tax. Most people shrug and say that it doesn't matter what it's called, because regardless of what you call it the court says that it isn't unconstitutional. The politicians, of course, say that what you cal it is critically important .

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[GLMDesigns]

Whether the intent is discriminatory or not is not the issue.
The Constitutional question is simple - does the President have the authority?

Nothing more. Nothing less. The answer was obvious from the beginning. Those bringing other things (such as discrimination) were just bringing it up to inflame the uninformed. Intent Not intending to start a flame war or insult you. But it's clear. So clear that it was a 9-0 decision.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[ganjadude]

im not even taking sides here so lets stop with the ad hom attacks mmkay?

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[ganjadude]

good thing this is an executive order, not even part of the legislative side of the 3 way dance than isnt it?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dcw3]

Please try to look it up before posting such rubbish.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[nomadic]

8 USC 1152: "no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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."

That provision was entered into law in 1965, after the one you quote, and therefore takes precedence.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[nomadic]

8 USC 1152: " no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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."

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[nomadic]

Right, I should have said for immigrant visas, not "entry."

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dcw3]

Not directed to the parent....

So, are you opposed to it because it's coming from the Trump administration? And, would it have been okay for Obama's administration to do this with the same countries they identified as needing extra scrutiny? Those countries mentioned by the parent were chosen by the intelligence community, and later updated by them during Obama's presidency.

I get the whole, I hate Trump, position. But what I don't get is the logic behind being against everything from him or his administration, just to be "the resistance". I'm not a fan either, but I'm not willing to ignore the message just because I don't like the messenger.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[dcw3]

OMG, you people get so fucking worked up against Trump that you fail to realize that the ban would already be over if it had been allowed to go into effect. It was only supposed to be for 90 days. Stop your whining already. And don't start with the bullshit argument that they should have their vetting plan in place, DHS has been blocked from doing so.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[ranton]

Except the Administration stated last week that the EO would go into effect 72 hours after the Court decides the case.

I believe you have misread the news article where you read that. The administration said it would take effect 72 hours after the stay was lifted, which was Monday. The ban will likely take effect this Thursday.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jittles]

Because religion isn't a criteria used to restrict entry, duh. Like I said, your argument fails.

It absolutely was a criteria of the original executive order. IT allowed Christian who already had an established relationship with the US to enter the US. It did not allow Muslims who already had an established relationship with the US to enter the US. Since the only difference between these two groups is their religion, how can you say that that religion is NOT a factor? That was quite literally the only exception in the original order. In what universe does this not constitute a restriction based upon religion?

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[david_thornley]

Going back to this, the armed forces are not required to exist by the Constitution, merely allowed, and the President has nothing to command that Congress doesn't have to set up first. I missed the part about being able to adjourn Congress if the houses disagree in the above. So, the only actual power the President without action by Congress has is to issue pardons and reprieves, adjourn Congress when the houses thereof disagree, and fill in vacancies when the Senate is out of session (the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution, and Congress can't abolish it).

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Triklyn]

http://www.newsweek.com/us-bar...

that was the case, syria, some people posit that the discrepancy was in the fact that the US drew refugees from jordanian refugee camps, and the muslims harassed all the christians out of those. so no christian refugees.

by the numbers. 56 christian refugees out of 10k syrian refugees, the christian population of syria represents 10 percent of the syrian population at the time.

so yeah.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Plus1Entropy]

I don't know actually. I could see the Supreme Court considering Trump's intentions and using that to color how the EO is read. I don't think the 2 issues can be separated entirely. Ultimately, it will come down to how the Court weighs these various things against each other.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Yeah, how annoying is that?

What the hell was wrong with the old UI where you could change your damn selection in the dropdown?

Surely this new one means the moderations must be less accurate, because there is NO way to correct mistakes?

On what planet is less accurate moderation a good idea?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Visa issuance is a separate and discreet issue. Here's what the law says about granting entry to the US:

1182(f)"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate"

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

It should be noted that in no circumstances does a visa guarantee entry to the US.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

How difficult is it to be that deliberately obtuse?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Because the original EO was rescinded and is now not at issue.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

Thanks.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Bartles]

What the hell are you talking about?

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dbrueck]

Maybe, but intent is really only relevant on the sentencing / punishment side of things; it's not supposed to be a factor in determining if something is legal or constitutional, in part because then the test for constitutionality would become wildly subjective.

If you get pulled over by the police for speeding, all of your pleading and reasoning does not change the fact that your action was illegal - you broke the law. :) If the officer chooses to let you off with a warning, it's not that you've convinced him that you were not in fact breaking the law after all, but that you convinced him to minimize the punishment. Your intentions are not a factor in determining if an action was legal or not.

A more relevant example is that when the courts are hearing challenges to a law, it's pretty common for a law to get struck down because of its unintended consequences, especially in scenarios that weren't really considered when the law was written. The fact that the law might have really excellent intentions behind it is irrelevant; the court will strike it down if it violates the Constitution or conflicts with too much precedent or other laws.

Just as good intentions can't make an unconstitutional law constitutional, bad intentions can't make a constitutional law unconstitutional.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jittles]

Because the original EO was rescinded and is now not at issue.

Ok but the person I responded to said there was no religion test in the first EO. I have never claimed there was one in the second EO. I have stated from the beginning that I've never even read the second EO. So why have we been arguing over this?

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[MachineShedFred]

You're so used to being adversarial that you've already tagged me as having some skin in this particular game other than being a United States Citizen. Why would I fear "loose-ing" any more than anyone else? And what exactly would I be loose-ing anyway? I'm not up for nomination for the bench. I'm not bringing a case in front of the bench. I can't "loose" any more than the other 320 million Americans out there. So why are you assuming I have some kind of fear?

And where did anyone mention anything about increasing the number of Associate Justices? Sure, that would allow whatever President is currently in office to pack the court, but literally nobody is talking about increasing the number of seats except you.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[mysidia]

Machine guns are also not "arms", because they are squad operated.

The constitution specifically described a rationale for the 2nd amendment of supporting well-equipped militia as a reason for maintaining a right to Keep and Bear arms.

So no; it is not true that Machine guns are not arms.

If you feel uncomfortable with your next door neighbor having a canon or machine gun, then look to your city, municipal government, or your state for regulation.... that is because it is the states' role to regulate where the federal government has been restricted by design, specifically to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful and being able to intimidate all the states and the people.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[phrackthat]

I think it means the court will likely uphold much of the ban (if it reaches the merits of the ban because it may be a moot question now). In order to obtain an injunction, the petitioning party must show that they are likely to prevail on the merits of the underlying case. The lower courts each found that the states and parties requesting the injunction were likely to prevail and thus granted the injunction. Since 5 SCOTUS justices lifted the injunction as to the primary part of the ban, it should mean that those justices do not believe the petitioning parties will prevail on the merits of the ban itself. That's a very simplistic analysis -- there are other prongs to the test as to whether to grant a preliminary injunction (for instance, the courts are supposed to balance the harms to each of the respective parties -- even if a party was likely to prevail on the merits a court may not put an injunction in place if it would result in irreparable harm to the opposing party. The 5 justices may have reasoned that the potential harm (say a terrorist attack) is too great an irreparable harm to maintain a preliminary injunction, even if they believed that the petitioning party would ultimately prevail). The Court has also asked the parties to brief the issue of mootness -- the original ban was supposed to expire in 90 days. Therefore, even if the SCOTUS lifted the injunction, there may not even be a ban to be enforced because the 90 days has run . . . and there wouldn't be a case or controversy for the court to rule on in the next session.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[ebvwfbw]

There is no question that they'll uphold Trump's EO. He has that right under the law. It's been done before, Carter, even Obama. Under Eisenhower especially. The only reason there was ever a stay is because they did judge shopping and took it to a circuit (actually a circus) that would rule leftist no matter what.

In this case, in my opinion the circuits were just crazy with their decisions. Decisions that a first year law student should be able to take apart they were so bad and I think they knew it. Obama packed the 4th circuit during his term with just whacko leftists. If you were for the law, he wouldn't appoint you. In fact he's appointed about 40% of the Federal judges out there. Ideology over law is the left's mantra. Even if it later comes back to literally kill them as it has in many countries.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Plus1Entropy]

Just because I got pulled over doesn't mean I broke the speed limit. I may go to the court date and challenge the ticket, and I can bring up that I have a clean driving record for over 10 years as evidence that I did not speed.

But then, the cop shows that I have all these YouTube Videos of myself drag racing and bragging about breaking the speed limit and never getting a ticket... well then I'm probably not getting off.

So intent and character can be relevant. If the EO intends to subvert the First Amendment, then that is relevant.

Also, the Constitutional is subjective. The Founders knew that, which is why they gave the Supreme Court the job of telling us what it means. If it was objective then there would be no reason to debate it's meaning in court, as has been done perpetually since ratification. Even while the people who the Constitution were still alive, its meaning was already being debated.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[nomadic]

It's not that separate and discrete. The executive order stopped all immigrant visa issuances, too, based purely on nationality, which violates the law.

Check out this, from a right-winger even:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

If he had issued an order stating that immigrant visas would not be issued to a certain class of people from the 6 countries, that would be different. That is why I suspect SCOTUS carved out those exceptions.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[dbrueck]

Sorry, by "pulled over for speeding" I meant "you were actually speeding and you got pulled over for it". The idea is that if you clearly do something illegal, then things like intent don't matter when it comes to the question of whether or not you did something illegal. If a cop caught you on the radar doing 80 in a 35, your intent (regardless of whether it was "I was late for work" or "I was carrying a dying man to the hospital") does not alter that fact. It may, however, affect the punishment you receive for doing that illegal thing.

That's where your 10 years of clean driving would come in - it is not in any way, not the tiniest degree, "evidence" that you were not speeding, it's entirely irrelevant to that question. But it might help your argument that, while yes you did break the law, a lesser (or even no) punishment is warranted.

If you want a less ambiguous example but still related to driving, imagine you were caught driving with no license plates, or expired tags, or any number of things. The reason you broke the law (your motivation or intent) is entirely separate from the question of whether or not you did.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[Artagel]

That was Andrew Jackson who refused to implement a Supreme Court order to prevent the incursion of Georgia militias to Cherokee land. It was part of the chain of events leading to the Trail of Tears.

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I disagree with your interpretation of how the POTUS can exert his authority. If Congress writes a law granting the POTUS power to control border and immigration as he sees fit, and then he decides to - through an EO, say - discriminate based on religion, that's still not Congress making a law about religious freedom. It would be a shitty thing to do, and I'm sure people would challenge it, but it seems to me that while his authority in this matter derives from Congress, they didn't actually break the law.

Re:Does this predict ruling?

[jwhitener]

You are wrong.

Intent always matters, otherwise Judges would have no real power to strike something down that was obviously attempting to bypass the laws, just by using careful wording.

Judges really are there to use judgment. Not just process words as if they were a programming language.

Likewise, juries are there to determine fuzzy areas as well. Law often says things like "a reasonable person would X". A jury or judge has to decide if X was 'reasonable'.

See the recent court rulings against political gerrymandering in certain states. On paper, the districts were drawn up with reasons x,y,z, which would be legal on their own. However, a judge saw that these districts were very neatly drawn around primarily Black communities. He/She used Judgment and basically said, "Oh come on, you can say x,y,z but I know you are doing 'A'".

Re: Does this predict ruling?

[Rakarra]

It doesn't matter, because the travel ban does not have anything to do with religion, other than the bullshit narrative you're trying to attach that is completely fabricated.

But it does. The problems is that you can use the past statements of the President and Steve Bannon and the like against them.

So now it only affects tourists?

[clickety6]

That's going to bring down the tourism rates even lower...

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[imrahilj]

Do we get much tourism from those countries?

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Do we get much tourism from those countries?

The "Trump Slump" is affecting all international tourism to the US.

http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that was due to your horrid ebooks?

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Thank you for inquiring about my ebooks. My newest ebook will go on sale October 1, 2017. Pre-orders at Apple iBooks, Barnes & Noble and Kobo coming soon.

"Unemployable: Haiku & Other Poems"
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/732251

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

The only inquiring we have about your ebooks is: why do write them?

They make money.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Wresting with the pigs will do nothing but get you muddy, and the pig enjoys it.

This mud wrestling also increases traffic to my websites, which in turn generates ad revenues. Until I was shown the errors of my ways by some asshats, I never knew that Slashdot was a platform to acquire an audience.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

- I expected a book. This is a very short memory that the author shares.

- What a disappointing read. It was only a couple of pages long and I was left wondering "Is that it!?". Spend your money elsewhere.

- this was about the dumbest thing i have ever tried to read. was not even put together well for an understandable story.. just real dumb

Negative reviews for a short ebook that no had to pay money for. Free opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

That you think your complete shit is worth millions of dollars is not even funny, it's downright ill.

L. Ron Hubbard's books are still selling 30 years after his death. Must be making his estate a pretty penny.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

What you're saying is, at least three people got your 'free book,' and came back to complain about something they spent zero money on?

Yes.

Those bad reviews are probably marked "verified purchaser" on Amazon [...]

If you bought someone through Amazon and leave a review, you're a "verified purchaser" whether you pay or not.

[...] and they probably spent 99 cents of their hard-earned money on your rubbish.

Not for that particular ebook.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Seriously, can you be more of a repugnant human being?

If you think that's bad, you should have seen that virus-infected dick pics that someone posted over the weekend with my name, email address and website URL.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Or are you getting so angry your fat fingers get in each other's way as you try to bash out a clever reply?

I'm deliberately dropping words to provoke the wannabe grammar nazis into fits.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Overall, not a particularly good cross-section of your reviews, creimer.

Have you ever seen the review for "Thinner" by Richard Bachman: "This is a novel that Stephen King could have written if he knew how to write." I'm sure that review got changed once it became known that Stephen King was Richard Bachman after someone blotched the copyright claim form

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

You don't even care about the reader, do you?

I absolutely do care about the readers — just not the ones on Slashdot. ;)

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[Skuld-Chan]

You have to ask yourself too - what creates more jobs - coal or tourism?

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Why do you write books that get such terrible reviews, then?

You don't know if something is good or bad until you put it out there for everyone to see. Most people are afraid of being criticized and don't put anything out.

If you care about the reader, dismissing your critical readers seems to be a curious way of going about that.

Are the criticisms that I'm receiving on Slashdot have to do with the literary merit of my work? Or the well-known fact that I used to be the fat retarded boy on the short bus?

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

Problem: You're no Stephen King.

Neither was Stephen King. The movies based on his early novels were more well known than him. When he did the American Express commercial in 1983, he was serious about not being recognized in public. When my mom saw the commericial, she asked: "Who the fuck is Stephen King?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_N5JWe_gwM

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

"Who the fuck is C.D. Reimer?"

Of course, they have — on Slashdot.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] and refuse to edit, correct, or update?

I've been editing, correcting and updating for the last seven years. I'm currently consolidating 59 ebooks into 25 ebooks.

Multiple people have commented on your typos, poor grammar, and awful composition structure.

On my Slashdot comments. yes. I've yet to read a specific example from an ebook that I wrote. The whole ebook. Not the sampler, not the negative reviews. Find something, send me an email: slashdot at cdreimer.com.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

You have to ask yourself too - what creates more jobs - coal or tourism?

Tourism. Coal mining is a dying industry and has been shrinking for decades.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

You responded to that specific example, and hand-waved it away by saying "I've sold copies!"

Which is a perfectly valid answer. I tend not to revise short stories that were previously edited by someone else for a print anthology.

So, when can we expect to see an errata update?

When I commissioned a new cover art for that ebook in the next year or so.

Re:So now it only affects tourists?

[cold fjord]

Do we get much tourism from those countries?

The "Trump Slump" is affecting all international tourism to the US.

http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/

Two things -

First, You didn't answer the question that was posed. If you had answered it I think we would find remarkably little tourism from Syria and Yemen to the US, for example. Second, the answer that you did give "somehow" omits a long running important factor in the outcome. I'll give you a hand:

2015 - Will a Strong US Dollar Scare Away International Tourists?
2016 - How the strong dollar is hurting American tourism
2017 - Strong dollar, travel ban threaten California tourism, UCLA forecast says

Your "moderate" setting seems to be calibrated a little too close to "anti."

SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[daveschroeder]

You'll rarely see a clearer statute anywhere:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

8 USC Sec 1182(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[imrahilj]

That statute is clear, but there is the later statute of 1965 that seems to prohibit using national origin as a determinant for immigration. Does the 1965 statute supersede that clause of the 1952 statute? Also, I've noticed that older laws seem to be written more clearly. Probably just a coincidence.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[Topwiz]

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.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but the question is whether any particular action based on that law is constitutional. For example, if the "class" that is banned is a *religion*, then this action based on that law would be unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. The Constitution supersedes the law.

So of course Trump's travel ban doesn't *actually* ban people based on religion. It bans them based on nationality. So the legal question is whether or not *nationality* is a constitutionally and legally acceptable "class" upon which to ban people.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[GabeGhearing]

If 8 USC Sec 1182 is the justification for the executive order it's easy to shoot it down.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Executive orders are generally accepted as only allowed to extend laws and presidential-powers enacted by congress(e.g. 8 USC Sec 1182 you are citing).

The Federal Code contains some odd stuff...

• https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/102.39

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[fustakrakich]

After skimming through that, it seems that the entire population of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and various other players should be kept out.

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(i) In general

Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

But wait! There's more!

Oh hell, the entirety of Section 3 spells it out. Torture, terrorists, on and on, the selective, sparse, politically expedient enforcement makes the whole thing a sham.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, I've noticed that older laws seem to be written more clearly. Probably just a coincidence."

I wouldn't bet on it being a coincidence. Who get elected to Congress to write the laws? Mostly lawyers.

Who benefits from vague laws? Lawyers that sue to have the courts determine how to interpret the vague law and lawyers that take the other side of the case. Coincidence, I think not.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[interkin3tic]

Isn't the issue whether or not he's establishing a national religion by targeting the ban at Muslims? Wouldn't the establishment clause be held higher than that law?

"It's not a religion ban" blah blah blah, not amusing or convincing, everyone knows what this is.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[c]

After skimming through that, it seems that the entire population of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and various other players should be kept out.

Any government official of any country which enforces blasphemy or apostate laws, at least:

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[fustakrakich]

Well, you know, Stalin was a ally while it was convenient. It's an *empire thing*, man!

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[oh_my_080980980]

And it doesn't matter what you and the peanut gallery thinks. It matters what the law says. The travel ban does not excluded just muslims, it excludes all people from certain countries. The United States has done that before.

I find the term "mostly muslim" countries to be not amusing or convincing.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[AmiMoJo]

The irony is that Trump could simply have used that statute to do it if he hadn't screwed himself earlier by calling it a Muslim ban. It only became unconstitutional when it started targeting people by religion, and although he claimed it wasn't specific to Muslims his earlier statements made it clear what his intent was.

The really mind boggling thing is that after being rejected the first time, his administration made the same mistake again by openly talking about how they would re-word it slightly but don't worry loyal supporters it's still really a Muslim ban.

Re: SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[Adambomb]

You are incorrect. There are certain phrases in the constitution that most definitely apply to literally anyone within the US, most notably those which reflect on "any person". In fact a large portion of the constitution falls into these categories.

There are, however, other wordings where things are less clear. This is especially the case regarding the travel ban and wording around freedom of religion; It's even most likely the reason the Supreme Court reinstatement had the requirement of not applying if the person has "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." This has to do with the accepted definition of "The People" in the constitution, see: https://harvardlawreview.org/w...

As you can see it gets rather murky around that point, but just to say that the constitution only applies to citizens is not at all accurate.

Re: SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[mpercy]

"There are certain phrases in the constitution that most definitely apply to literally anyone within the US, most notably those which reflect on "any person". In fact a large portion of the constitution falls into these categories."

True, very true.

Immaterial, however, as the ban is on people who are *not* in the US, and are *not* US citizens.

Re: SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[Adambomb]

in the case of religious discrimination, the class defined in the ban as originally written would have included people outside the US that would fall under the definition of "the people" which i'm pretty sure is why it was reinstated with the caveat that effectively removed travelers that would fit that definition.

Wouldn't be surprised if in October the response becomes "given that the class defined as it stands now is not protected, this is not a constitutional issue".

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[edtice1559]

Having a clear statue does not mean we have a constitutional situation. If the statue said "The President may violate the establishment clause," it wouldn't last despite being very clear. Here, Congress has vested power in the president. But Congress can't vest in the president powers that Congress itself doesn't have. That would be trying to bring through the back door what is not allowed through the front. The ruling will be much more nuanced that you are predicting. IANAL

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[interkin3tic]

And it doesn't matter what you and the peanut gallery thinks. It matters what the law says.

On a discussion board? It doesn't? Well good to know, lets shut it down slashdot. All we need is a simple posting of all the laws and that's all.

FFS, this is not the supreme court right here.

The travel ban does not excluded just Muslims, it excludes all people from certain countries. I find the term "mostly Muslim" countries to be not amusing or convincing.

Trump and company outright called it a Muslim ban. The original draft of the ban excepted Christians but oddly not Muslims. The right wing can't chant "ban Muslims ban Muslims ban Muslims" and then expect the rest of us to pretend they're not trying to ban Muslims.

Re: SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[KGIII]

Only partially true. Visitors don't get to vote, buy firearms, etc...

Re: SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[KGIII]

Hmm... What has congress got to do with an executive order?

I am not a legal scholar. I really don't know.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[greythax]

The president has the legal ability to do a lot of things, but violating the protections of the constitution is not one of them. This is precisely what the courts are deciding. It has nothing to do with "does he have the power." It has everything to do with "Does this particular proclamation violate the constitution?" Which is exactly what the courts are trying to decide. And the fact that he called publicly for a muslim ban DOES belong in those deliberations, representing clear intent to infringe on the first amendment. The courts are doing exactly what the courts are intended to do.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[david_thornley]

Relations with Stalin in and around WWII were complicated. He was generally in favor in the West from mid-1941 (when Germany invaded) until the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, which started complicating relationships. Had he handled that better, he might have been considered an ally for some time after the war. It would have broken down eventually, but not necessarily immediately after the war.

Re:SCOTUS making the right choice to hear

[dcw3]

It's a pretty good stretch of the imagination to imply that a 90 day ban on countries identified by the previous administration, and containing less than half of the world's Muslims is a "Muslim ban". But understand...it's Trump, so it must be stopped.

Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[Rhipf]

If the reason for the ban was supposedly put in place to "address gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures" and was only supposed to be in effect for 120 days shouldn't there be no need for the ban any longer?

If they (the Trump administration) figured that they only needed 120 days to fix the "gaps in the government's screening and vetting procedures" and they have been in office for 155+ days then they should already have fixed the problems and the ban should no longer be needed.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[Fire_Wraith]

They've claimed that because the bans weren't allowed to take affect, that they couldn't take action to address those gaps.

This is of course unmitigated bullsh*t, because any paralysis in the government bureaucracy has nothing to do with whether or not a given individual is admitted to the country. They could certainly argue that the suspension of the ban might have allowed some people in that shouldn't have been admitted, but any failure to act in the 120 days is entirely on them.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, you guys keep thinking the purpose of these is to actually impede any specific people (i.e., terrorists), when in fact it is just another tool this guy and his administration uses to manipulate the news cycle.

My guess is there is something they want to distract from, either currently or coming up shortly, so they will keep trying to make a big noise about small-ish stuff like this, to distract as needed. My guess of course is either the healthcare bill, or the Russia investigation(s).

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[Calydor]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, the future is the hardest thing to predict.

It is entirely possible that the 120 days was a 'first wave' kind of deal, to see around day 100 how far they'd gotten, if they needed more time with another decree etc. Perhaps some of the measures they wanted to put in place during those 120 days would be in response to how the affected countries responded, if they found other means of getting to America and so on. Obviously those measures are REALLY hard to get done if you don't have the necessary data due to no ban having been in place.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[dwillden]

Doesn't matter, This still needs to be fought, as the law clearly gives the President this authority but lower courts have decided to take his irrelevant campaign speeches as somehow redefining the very specific and limited text of his Executive Orders, and then implemented Nationwide bans on implementation. Normally when one of the Circuit courts acts that ruling stands for that Circuit, not for the nation as a whole. This was seen in the gay marriage battle where it wasn't until one of the cases reached the Supreme Court that it achieved nationwide impact.

Thus the over-reach by the lower courts must be addressed, or we actually have a constitutional issue.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[Kohath]

If they can't make rules that last for 90 or 120 days, then "government screening and vetting procedures" are irrelevant because they can't make rules to screen anyone out after that either. The courts (some of them anyway) were effectively saying the State Department no longer had the authority to decide who gets a travel visa and who doesn't.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[mpercy]

The earlier injunctions prevent the Government from even doing this research phase. That was only removed June 12th, so they've only had a small number of days to work on that.

"While the most controversial provisions of the President's revised ban blocking travel to the US remain tied up in the courts, a federal appeals court formally cleared the way late Monday for different portions of the executive order to move forward. The Trump administration can now conduct internal reviews of other countries' vetting procedures for visa applicants while the broader case is on review in the US Supreme Court."

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[mpercy]

Original injunction actually prevented this from being done...

CNN:

"However, the 9th Circuit concluded that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision was overbroad in certain limited respects, and reversed the portions of Watson's ruling that barred the administration from conducting internal reviews of other countries' vetting procedures -- a move Secretary John Kelly called a "big win" last week in an interview with CNN's Tal Kopan.

This part of the ruling "was not narrowly tailored to addressing only the harms alleged," the 9th Circuit panel explained. "For example, internal determinations regarding the necessary information for visa application adjudications do not have an obvious relationship to the constitutional rights at stake or statutory conflicts at issue here. Plaintiffs have not shown how the government's internal review of its vetting procedures will harm them."

Normally, the 9th Circuit's decision would sit for 52 days while the parties tie up loose ends, but last week the Justice Department asked the court for a speedy mandate to make its decision from June 12 take effect immediately -- a request the court granted Monday, thereby specifically allowing the vetting portions of the executive order to proceed now.

Re:Shouldn't this be pointless at this point?

[rahvin112]

Baloney. When you add workload in the area of vetting all that happens is the list gets longer and it takes longer to get the visa. There is no deadline. Your argument is baseless.

The larger question to be resolved is

[zerofoo]

Do constitutional protections extend to non-citizens living outside the borders of the US?

The ramifications of this ruling will have an enormous impact potentially making the "long-arm" of US law even longer.

We need to be very careful about extending the US constitution beyond the scope of US citizens and US borders.

Re:The larger question to be resolved is

[swb]

Probably some, or at least it makes sense that if they have access to US courts they should have them under the umbrella of constitutional rules.

I get your larger point, though, and I don't completely understand where these rights become all-encompassing. Possibly once on US soil, as there would seem to be reasonable arguments for a risk to US citizens if the government can treat a random person in the US unconstitutionally under the guise that their citizenship status is unknown.

Re:The larger question to be resolved is

[interkin3tic]

Not really. It only applies to people trying to come into the US. They're not trying to claim there's a ban on Muslims traveling from other parts of the world to other parts of the world.

On secession

[Baron_Yam]

As a general rule I think communities are stronger the more diverse (but tolerant (within reason)) they are, and secession is a bad idea.

However, the USA seems so divided on whether to be a robber baron libertarian 'paradise' of God-fearing Christians or an Orwellian liberal state where everyone thinks what the state tells them is correct to think., that sometimes I think secession might be the way to go.

It seems Americans are extremely keen to fight based on party lines for no reason other than they're party lines, and the political system doesn't really allow for a viable third party to appear on the scene - you'd just split the right or left vote and ensure victory to the ones you most oppose.

Let the hard-red and the hard-blue states go their own way, and handle their interdependency as a matter of international trade instead of national policy. Jesusland can believe in a 6000 year old Earth, and Leftwingtopia can force everyone to memorize 100 new gender pronouns.

Re:On secession

[Rockoon]

It seems Americans are extremely keen to fight based on party lines for no reason other than they're party lines

Because neither major party represents anywhere close to a majority of Americans, but every election cycle the media tells people repeatedly that they better vote for one of the two major parties.

Re:On secession

[XxtraLarGe]

However, the USA seems so divided on whether to be a robber baron libertarian 'paradise' of God-fearing Christians or an Orwellian liberal state where everyone thinks what the state tells them is correct to think., that sometimes I think secession might be the way to go.

No need for secession. The solution is already in the Constitution, and it's called federalism. The federal government is supposed to have an extremely limited role in the governing of the country: courts, national defense & foreign affairs. That's pretty much it. Everything else can be handled by the states. Some people will say "What about regulating interstate commerce?" but what they don't realize is that the intention of the interstate commerce clause was to ensure free trade between the states, not to allow the federal government to impose onerous restrictions.

Re:On secession

[plague911]

Except the "liberal" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as you have defined it. Their view is that, that "federalism" is the what is standing in the way of *civilization*. This is actually an intractable problem the only way to solve it is for the liberal states to form their own sub government, which imho is not actually unconstitutional but even less practical than a full split.

Re:On secession

[XxtraLarGe]

Except the "liberal" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as you have defined it.

Exceptwhen they do. Only Trump could make liberals embrace federalism! :-D

Re:On secession

[technothrasher]

the only way to solve it is for the liberal states to form their own sub government, which imho is not actually unconstitutional but even less practical than a full split.

I suspect this would be constitutionally considered forming a new state through the joining of two or more states, which is addressed by Article IV, Section 3. It would have to be approved by congress.

Re:On secession

[BlueStrat]

Except the "liberal" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as you have defined it. Their view is that, that "federalism" is the what is standing in the way of *civilization*.

This is spot-on. Progressivism is about 'progressing' past the limitations on Federal power in the Constitution.

This is actually an intractable problem the only way to solve it is for the liberal states to form their own sub government, which imho is not actually unconstitutional but even less practical than a full split.

It seems the Progressives have already chosen their own "final solution" at a recent Congressional charity baseball game practice. They say they want to ban guns, but when the Rule of Law stands in the way of their agendas, they become violent and pick up a gun. Time after time, a violent shooting occurs at a mall or school, and if it's not Muslims following the teachings of Mohamed to kill infidels, it's liberal-Progressive Democrat nut-jobs.

What they really want is everyone *except* them be disarmed, as cowards, murderers, and tyrants always do. They use your money to pay for armed security for themselves, but want to deny you the right to arm yourself for protection.

Ammo-up.

Strat

Re:On secession

[BlueStrat]

"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

Re:On secession

[david_thornley]

Except the "conservative" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as GP has defined it. Consider Federal drug bans, as one example. Everybody wants the Feds to have a certain amount of power, which varies person to person, and looks for Constitutional reasons for that.

Re:On secession

[david_thornley]

Trust me, if Progressives in general decided to shoot Republican members of Congress, we'd do a much better job of it. This was no more a liberal act than the shooting of Giffords was a conservative act.

Re:On secession

[BlueStrat]

They should have done what was right in the first place.

Then the US would have remained a slave-holding British Colony, as the entire reason they were forced to compromise was the southern slave-states refused to join if they had to give up slavery.

Or, would you prefer we still owned slaves and remained a British Colony?

Strat

Re:On secession

[dcw3]

Doesn't the idea of blue and red states going their own way contradict the idea of more diversity makes us stronger? Not that I agree with that assumption.

Re:On secession

[Baron_Yam]

More diversity makes you stronger up to the point where you're fighting each other more than you gain from the exposure to different viewpoints.

When 50% of the nation is dead set on stopping the other 50% from doing anything... you don't get a lot of progress.

Travel bans are a needed power

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Whether you like it or not, the ability to wholesale black entire regions from traveling to the US is actually the least cruel, least invasive and least destructive way of preemptively handling potential problems from foreign sources. If they don't arrive here...

1. We don't have to surveil them.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.

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.

(As a side note, "you might be a neocon if..." you think it's deplorable to screen like this, but think shipping a man off to Syria to be "evaluated" is sound, moral foreign policy)

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[Geoffrey.landis]

Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries.

Japan does not have a first amendment protecting freedom of religion.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[aardvarkjoe]

Japan does not have a first amendment protecting freedom of religion.

No, but they do have a article in their constitution about religious freedom which appears to be fairly equivalent to the protections of freedom of religion in our First Amendment.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[oh_my_080980980]

Which only applies to to U.S. citizens. Swing and a miss.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[oh_my_080980980]

Because it backs up the poster position that other countries engage in travel bans??? It is very relevant just because you don't like it does not make immaterial.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[AmiMoJo]

It's a lie anyway, Japan has actually been making a lot of effort to ATTRACT Muslim tourists in recent years. If you watch NHK World travel shows they have Muslim presenters, they highly how you can get Halal food etc.

Here's the official government website promoting it: http://muslimguide.jnto.go.jp/

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[Solandri]

Constitutional protections only apply to people on U.S. soil. That was the whole point of putting a prison in Guantanamo - it was Cuban soil, not U.S., and thus the prisoners wouldn't have U.S. Constitutional protection. (Though the SCotUS eventually decided the terms of the U.S. lease with Cuba gave it control as if it were U.S. soil).

Visa applicants, or people entering at U.S. border checkpoints for that matter, are not considered to be on U.S. soil yet, and thus do not enjoy Constitutional protection.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you like it or not, the ability to wholesale black entire regions from traveling to the US is actually the least cruel, least invasive and least destructive way of preemptively handling potential problems from foreign sources. If they don't arrive here...

1. We don't have to surveil them.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.

Brilliant! And if we blacklist all foreign IPs we can't be hacked either! Why didn't we think of this before?!

Possibly because hiding from the problem doesn't make it go away. And blowing it out of proportion doesn't help either. Why burn down a forest to remove a tree?

the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values

That you consider the morals and values that we have modified to have been fine before they were changed is rather telling.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[orgelspieler]

Wow. I've never seen this argument before. "XXXXX is great because at least it's better than torture!" I'll have to keep that in my back pocket next time I go a-trolling.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[interkin3tic]

I wouldn't put it past ISIL and al qaeda to be upset about fighting pirates, sure. But the fact remains, Japan is not a target for Muslim extremism because they're not interfering in Islamic countries. The US is a target because we are.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[johannesg]

Additionally, last time I checked, Japan has zero military bases in Muslim countries.

There are plenty of countries without military bases in muslim countries that get attacked regularly by islamic terrorists. That's because it has nothing to do with having military bases or not; it's all about the islamic conquest of the world.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[budgenator]

Constitutional protections only apply to people on U.S. soil.

That would be mostly NO, most of our "Constitutional Rights" are natural rights the Government is specifically prohibited from infringing.

That was the whole point of putting a prison in Guantanamo - it was Cuban soil, not U.S., and thus the prisoners wouldn't have U.S. Constitutional protection.

That's what hey said but it was mostly to make access to the detainees difficult.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[interkin3tic]

You're right, but they're generally closer to the middle east than Japan is. Also we're comparing/contrasting Japan and the US. The US DOES have military bases as well as directly opposing islamic militants Japan does not, that is why Japan is not attacked and we are. Not, as GP suggested, because they are xenophobes.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

This dumb assed belief needs to die. I don't know where people learned it; certainly not from a public school.

The U.S. Constitution applies to _anyone_ so long as they are on U.S. soil.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[david_thornley]

That was the whole point of putting a prison in Guantanamo - it was Cuban soil, not U.S., and thus the prisoners wouldn't have U.S. Constitutional protection.

That always seemed wrong to me. In all the other governments I know of in the world when the Constitution took effect, the government (typically a monarch) theoretically had all the power, and constitutions and other such laws were limits on the government's power. The US Federal Government is supposed to have the powers in the Constitution, so those are positive statements about what the Feds can do. This is still enforced, although "Commerce...among the several States" gets (in my opinion) way overstretched.

Therefore, anything the Federal government can do is subject to the Constitution.

Re:Travel bans are a needed power

[mjwx]

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.

Remember that Japan suffers from Domestic terrorism and a declining population. Right now they're in a protracted version of the GFC with an ageing workforce. A lot of Japanese companies are now outsoursing manufacturing to places like Thailand because there are few young Japanese to hire cheaply... Oh and subway gas attacks.

1. We don't have to surveil them.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.

Banning Evil Brown People(TM) wont do anything to stop terrorism because they'll just convince a person of the Correct Skin Colour(TM) to do their dirty work. As I eluded to above, a lot of terrorists are domestic or at least second generation. With the reach of the internet, disenfranchised youths can be recruited without ever leaving the country. Turning a blind eye to that and patting yourself on the back because you've Stopped Terr'ism(C) by banning the Evil Brown People(TM) is just stupid int he extreme.

3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.

Only a fool stops being concerned about what is going on beyond their borders, only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools thinks its safe to ignore a potential enemy.

If you want to reduce the threat of terror there is one simple step:
1. Stop fucking around with the governments of other countries.

Following that little nugget of wisdom will stop 98% of most terrorist causes against you.

Why do we still need this?

[mrun4982]

The 90 days are long gone. Whatever he wanted to address during that period should have already been addressed.

Re:Why do we still need this?

[Stoertebeker]

Mod parent up!
If the ban was really to make the US safer, and it took 90 days to come up with "improved" poking and prodding procedures to that end, said procedures are ready and should be implemented without delay. The ban is moot.

Re:Why do we still need this?

[guruevi]

The Presidential orders were deemed illegal therefore whatever action was attached to it is thereby also illegal. Basically the courts suspended any action surrounding the handling of Islamic Terrorism for the time being because it's deemed to be religious discrimination.

Only in the US are you free to terrorize people as long as you claim religion (and that doesn't just end with Islam, it applies to Christians as well).

Re:Why do we still need this?

[mpercy]

No, don't mod parent up.

The original injunction specifically prevented the government from performing the actions referenced. It was only on Jun 12th that the 9th Circuit overrode that part of the injunction, and only Jun 19th that that part of the injunction was actually lifted. So the 90-day or 120-day clock was not ticking at all until then. If they had been doing that work anyway, they'd have been in contempt of court.

Re:Haha, EVERYONE has a claim to that though!

[Rockoon]

How many people looking to emigrate can't cultivate a 'bona-fide' relationship with a legitimate person in the US sufficient to make this claim?

"I have a very deep and personal relationship with the NSA. Our relationship is so close that I keep no secrets from them."

bona fide relationship

[Geoffrey.landis]

How many people looking to emigrate can't cultivate a 'bona-fide' relationship with a legitimate person in the US sufficient to make this claim?

From the linked article https://www.bloomberg.com/news...:

[people exempt from the ban] "includes people visiting a close family member, students who have been admitted to a university or workers who have accepted an employment offer, the court said. But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of traveling to the U.S."

Why does a 90 day travel ban help us 90 days later

[ThomasBHardy]

I'm at a loss to understand why a 90 day travel ban, with the stated purpose of creating time to get a "proper set of rules and procedures into place" is what we're fighting about several months later.

Shouldn't the full fledged version be ready for review/vetting by now, making this whole thing a travesty of taxpayer money and the SCs time?

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

So are the Christians.

Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

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.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

By saying "No!" to a religion that puts women into bondage? By saying that it is not OK to oppress half of the population because of their sex?
Tell me, where does your "tolerance" end?
What are you willing to accept? When something stands against all of your "western" values and wants to destroy what you hold dear, do you just sit on your hands and let it happen so that you can show your hipster friends how tolerant you are?

There are certain things which we, in the west, value, things that we hold dear. Tell me, why should we forsake these core values by allowing the spread of something fundamentally at odds with them, purely in the name or Torrance? It makes no sense.
But, they say that cuckold is the new trend for western men, I guess guys like you are evidence to support that.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[clickety6]

Strangely Saudi Arabia aren't included in the travel ban, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Instead, the US decided to defend their Western ideals by selling them $110 billion of weapons despite their woeful record on human rights.

"There are certain things which we, in the west, value, things that we hold dear."

Seems like money is the top of that list...

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Ambassador Kosh]

The problem with the country is that we are heavily polarized physically. Most of those I have talked to are against the ban. The VAST majority of the muslims that want to visit or immigrate to the USA are not the extremist ones. The vetting process already takes over a year in most cases. What else would you want to add that could be scientifically shown to reduce the number we let through that are extreme?

People live near others that think like them. A lot of this is related to what businesses are in the area. Biotech for instance is concentrated in San Francisco and Boston. Those areas also attract a lot of other high tech businesses and the people that live there are pretty liberal since that is the kind of person attracted to cutting edge technology.

Liberals are conservatives don't see the same world. They don't see the same news, the same tv shows, the same movies, books etc. A rural person in the USA has more in common with a rural person from the UK than they do with an urban person and the same is true that someone from New York has more in common with London than a rural area in the USA.

The biggest issue I see is that only the cities should be involved in this decision. Muslim immigrants settle in the cities and not in the rural areas. Also if there is any kind of attack it will be in the cities are not in the rural areas. Since the consequences don't fall on the rural areas then let the cities decide. The rural areas are already heavily subsidized by the cities, why let them make decisions that only impact the cities also?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

Personally, I think all organized religion is terrible and more or less the cause of most of the worlds problems.
Christianity, was, years ago a plaque on this earth. The joint forces of Christianity and Islam help back the progress of mankind for more than 2000 years.

The difference is, for the most part Christianity has grown out of this "dark ages" mentality. Sure, there are some cults here and there that still practice the bad stuff, but their numbers are not enough to make a difference.
Islam on the other hand is simply massive. They never grew out of the dark ages. Why do I have to be OK that people CHOOSE to believe that shit? Why is that OK?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Doogie Howser]

"It's not like disliking a person because they are brown, or black or whatever color."

Yes, it is.

"The backbone of Islam is based on submission."

As it is in Christianity: women to men, men to God.

"hey... man, I heard that the Quran says that it is OK to hit your wife if she is disobedient or disrespectful."

I'm sure the Quran says a lot of things. As does the Bible. That doesn't make them right, or acceptable, or even representative.

"If I am "Racist" because I won't tolerate their hatred of women, then.. fine, I'm a racist."

No, what makes you racist is the blanket attribution of these negative aspects to all members of a heterogeneous group while living in a country where Muslims are a minority.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[houghi]

The problem is that a religion is not a country. If you are afraid of a religion, you should also kick out those that are already there.
You should perhaps start with closing their store. Have them wear a crescent moon on their outer clothing. Rally them up. Planes are dangerous, so put them on trains.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[godrik]

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.

It does make you an asshole (whether it makes you a racist or not is a semantic question). But there are lots of asshole in the world, so the impact is not that large.
What is an issue is when a branch government (federal or local) uses that criterion to curb people's freedoms and rights. Now I am no constitutional lawyer so I won't comment on whether it does infringe or not on freedom of religion. But I do see how the argument can be made.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Theaetetus]

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?

Sure, it's reasonable to not like them. Your feelings are your own, and you're welcome to them. Where it becomes a problem is where the government steps in and starts enforcing someone's feelings by banning people having a particular religious belief from entering the country. I understand you dislike them, and I'm not particularly fond of them either, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the Constitution. What does it say about us, as a nation, if we're willing to sacrifice our founding principles at the drop of a hat?

Want to ban muslims? Then go pass a Constitutional amendment repealing or amending the first amendment to remove the free exercise clause. If you can convince the majority of the population of 2/3rds of the states, then you can have your ban. Until then, you'll have to just have your hate.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Solandri]

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?

The distinction between what people are, and what they choose to believe is not the basis of Constitutional protections. The protections specifically listed in the Bill of Rights were made not based of whether the traits were objective or subjective, but based on which traits had historically been the target of unfair discrimination. Religious persecution has a rather ugly history behind it (and in fact was the reason a lot of the early colonists moved from Europe to the Americas), so religious freedom was enshrined in the Constitution. If there had been a long, sordid history of comic book geeks being beat up and killed, then liking comic books would've been specifically protected by the Constitution as well.

Islam is just one specific case. The general principle here is whether a society based on tolerance and coexistence is self-sustainable. Society is either inclusive or exclusive. Either we allow anyone and everyone to participate, or we exclude certain groups. The presumption here is that a society based on coexistence is in fact self-sustainable, we just have to figure out how to make it work. I'm not actually sure if it is self-sustainable, but I think it's a worthy enough goal that we should attempt it. If we start banning certain groups, then we become an exclusive society - just like the Nazis except we choose different groups to exclude. That may have worked centuries ago when most of the world was still unknown and unexplored so excluded groups could just pick up and move elsewhere, but we're running out of space now. It's inevitable that groups with incompatible subject philosophies are going to bump up against each other, so we're going to have to find some way to get along. As long as the vast majority of Muslims are willing to treat me with a live-and-let-live philosophy, I'm willing to reciprocate and treat them the same. And classify the occasional terrorist as outliers and criminals, rather than representative of their group overall.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[DerekLyons]

Honestly, I do not know understand why it is an issue to dislike someone because they are Muslim.

I don't know if you're American or not, but here's how things work in America: It's perfectly OK to dislike someone because they are Muslim. It's is not OK to take action against someone because they are Muslim.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[BlueStrat]

You don't see a problem with an irrational fear of someone because of their religion?

For the gay that's in mid-fall after being thrown from a 5-story building and the woman that was raped and is being stoned to death as punishment for being a victim, I'd say their fears are VERY real, and so are the fears of any nation's citizens whose government chooses to ignore all that and allow these violent 6th-century cult-member killers and rapists into their country unchecked.

Strat

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

You could also argue that the city folks are 100% dependent on rural Americans to support them. Food would be the biggest example.
The fact is, without rural Americans, city people would literally die. The reverse is not true. So, why should city people get to decide anything? They own their lives to country people?
See? It makes no sense.
We are all interconnected and make the system "sort of" work.
I agree, 99% of the Muslim population is not radical by Muslim standards. Personally, I do not think that the ban will do anything to make anyone safer. I do not think it has anything to do with terrorism. I think most people are not afraid of terrorism in their daily lives.

I have long considered myself to be an open minded and liberal man. I also pay my taxes, give to charity and severed in the armed forces during which time I was deployed.
I spend more than half the year living in Europe, so I am rather well traveled.
But, I simply cannot understand my liberal counterparts on this point. How is it OK to support the "freedom" of a religion that systematic oppresses women?
If anything, I would think Republican would love Muslims. They are basically the same. Both hate gay, both hate women, both want a religious state, both support extreme punishments for small crimes. Both of them think natural disasters are a result of not believing in god and so on.
But liberals?
Here is an entire group who hates everything that liberals stand for and seek to actively destroy it, but they simply fall all over themselves trying to show everyone how tolerate they are. I just cannot understand it.
It is your right to support Muslims right to hate women and gays, I just do not know why I am the bad guy for saying it's not OK.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

What is irrational to say you have an issue with religions who oppress women?
Or do you believe that women in the middle east are not oppressed?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

I never said Christians were perfect. For the most they have grown out of the craziest stuff. All in all, I would consider all religion bad.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

The ban has nothing to do with terrorism. It is designed to keep the countries who send the most Muslim immigrates from sending any more.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[MightyMartian]

There are over a billion Muslims, that kind of makes the "cult" claim a bit absurd, and not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings. In fact, it looks like it's a pretty damned small minority. Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[MightyMartian]

Sure I have a problem with religions that oppress women. That's why I dislike so many Evangelical churches.

Re: Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

Sorry, I do not know what this means.

I also think the fake gender stuff is nuts.
If someone wants to call themselves an asexual herbivore from the planet dinglehopper, more power to them. But, that doesn't mean that I have to play along in their fantasy.
This is where the discourse in America is taking a wrong turn. People can do whatever the fuck they want, but there should be nothing saying that the rest of the country has to play along.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

Look, I do see your point. Really, I do.
But where do draw the line? It is undeniable that Islam teaches hatred against gays. That they teach men that women are property for their pleasure.
This is the believe system of nearly the entire middle east. When do you decide, maybe we already have enough crazy people here and stop importing more?

Look, like these fucking wack-jobs from whatever that Christian Church is that goes to funerals with their God hates fags signs. I think these guys should be shut down as well. That type of thing, in my opinion should not be tolerated.
If you are preaching hatred and oppression against any group, then, IMO you should not be allowed a religious status and you should be persecuted.

On the other hand, I think that people who stand up and say.. hey, that is their religion! they have a right to oppress women and all the rest of. I think they should be persecuted as well.
 

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

So, the asshole in this whole thing is the one who thinks it is morally wrong to oppress women and gays? Then, I am happy to be an asshole. Sorry, it is not OK to me that they preach hatred to these groups. So, sit atop your glorious high horse, expounding the virtues or your liberal righteousness and limitless tolerance of groups who teach the hatred of others.
If these religions stood up and said hey... we support women, we wont make them wear full body covers and we support a person's right to be gay.. then fine. I would have no problem with them.
Seriously, how the fuck can you support their "right" to teach hatred? Is be because you have some hatred towards the same groups?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

Exactly so, and this should also not be supported or allowed under the guise of religion. Because it's total bullshit. No legal protection should be offered to any group who teaches those things.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[pablo_max]

Well, I have two passports. so, 1 out of 2 is not bad. ;)

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[orgelspieler]

I read about this one extreme religion where if a woman gets raped, she must be stoned to death, because she clearly didn't scream loud enough. The same religion says that women should not speak, and must submit to their husbands. It also says you have to pluck out your own eyes if you look at a woman with lust. My personal favorite is that if your child talks back to you, you should definitely beat him, and if that doesn't work, you can have the elders stone him to death.

Sounds pretty bad, right? Maybe we need to ban everybody from that religion, too. Oh wait, that's all from Christianity. Better pack your fucking bags, asshole.

I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans hold the First Amendment in such low regard that they would support any ban on any religion. Hell, I even tolerate L. Ron Hubbard's dipshit cult. You can dislike whoever you want, but don't assume for a second that you hold the majority opinion on this.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[BlueStrat]

There are over a billion Muslims, that kind of makes the "cult" claim a bit absurd, and not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings. In fact, it looks like it's a pretty damned small minority. Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.

Just because a cult has a large following does not disqualify the 'cult' status, as Islam is a death-cult.

You point out that there's over a billion Muslims, and your claim of a "small percentage" being radical is arguable, but even a fraction of a billion people who believe God orders them to kill unbelievers and/or enslave them is one hell of a threat in anyone's book who is even remotely rational.

Please stop with the absurd comparisons between Muslims and Christians. Besides, even if every Christian horror story the Left spews were true, you can't justify bad actions of one with bad actions of another. "But Johnny did it too!" is the excuse of a 6-year-old. Are you emotionally/intellectually older than six?

Strat

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[mpercy]

And the vast majority of Muslims, about 1 billion of them, from countries not on the list, are not affected.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Ambassador Kosh]

None of the muslims I have met want anything to do with oppressing women. They see that part of their religion as obsolete. Christians do the same thing to a lot of the stuff in the bible. Many parts are just ignored and considered obsolete. We have had large muslim populations in the USA for a long time and they have not pushed for women to be oppressed.

Most christians I know go to church a few times per year and do almost none of the things that is part of their religion and the muslims I know are the same way.

I would have to read the bible again but I am pretty sure that it also oppresses women but we don't consider christianity to be a religion that oppresses women because it has mostly grown out of that.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, without rural Americans, city people would literally die. The reverse is not true.

You're conveniently leaving out the harsh truth that city people pay more taxes than rural people and receive less federal and state benefit from their taxes than rural people.

The argument could even be made that without those tax-funded benefits being collected by rural folk, the rural folk would die because they couldn't afford to live based on the actual value of the work they do.

Fact is, imports of food from other countries could actually make up for a lot of what rural America does, which is why we subsidize wheat, corn, dairy, and other such food products to keep them competitive with foreign imports and to keep farmers from going bankrupt on the actual value of what they produce. We even invent and mandate products for what rural America does just to keep them from starving (see: Corn-based Ethanol in fuel).

Rural America needs city slickers just as much if not more than city slickers need rural America, especially considering those city slickers could feasibly import all their food. You can't get those nice tax refunds and subsidies without a bunch of rich city folk paying into the coffers.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[sl3xd]

The distinction between what people are, and what they choose to believe is not the basis of Constitutional protections. The protections specifically listed in the Bill of Rights were made not based of whether the traits were objective or subjective, but based on which traits had historically been the target of unfair discrimination. Religious persecution has a rather ugly history behind it (and in fact was the reason a lot of the early colonists moved from Europe to the Americas), so religious freedom was enshrined in the Constitution.

Constitutional protections on the freedom of religion either mean something, or they don't. If they don't mean anything, then what good is any other part of that document?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Sumus Semper Una]

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?

Disliking people is fine. Nobody is upset with you because you dislike certain people. For that matter, you can dislike people because of the color of their skin, for all I care. Yes, it would be racist, but you don't go to jail for having racist thoughts. What people take issue with is trying to turn dislike of a group into law. If your issue is with people who commit violence in the name of religion and those who subjugate women in the name of religion, why aren't you arguing for tougher legislation against that? Muslims most definitely don't have a monopoly on those actions.

People aren't refusing to support a Muslim ban because they're afraid of being called a racist. They're refusing to support a Muslim ban because it wouldn't be any more morally defensible than a Christian ban or a Jew ban or an Atheist ban. Institutional discrimination seems pretty fun until you realize it can be done to a group that you might get unfairly lumped into too.

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.

I thought you said this was about religion. Do Muslims from Indonesia hold this same view? Those from India? Uzbekistan? It's not at all possible that you saw a regional custom with religion draped around it rather than a religious custom, is it? Or a subset of religious views not held by all those who follow that religion? I once worked with a Christian who told me that masturbation (onanism, as she put it) is an affront to God. She even had scripture quotes to support her point. I can therefore infer that all Christians are vehemently against masturbation because of their religious principles, right?

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[wired_parrot]

This image of the muslim society as a conservatively and sexually repressed one is a very recent one that does not find historical evidence. Up until very recently, the words most likely to come to mind when mentioning "muslim women" was harem, belly-dancing or dance of the seven veils. When arabs were portrayed on film, it was as the seductive foreign lover, such as in Rudolph Valentino's "The Sheikh".

Writers like Gustave Flaubert were travelling to the Ottoman Empire to engage in illicit sexual behaviour, such as engaging with male prostitutes, which were forbidden in their home countries, as Flaubert writes from his travels to Egypt, Beirut and Instanbul. While the US was engaged in prohibition in the 1920s, American writers were travelling to Morocco where not only alcohol, but hash and weed were (and still are) freely available. William S. Burroughs settled in Tangiers to write the "Naked Lunch" in the 1950s because he found it to be a libertine paradise where hash and homosexuality were tolerated.

I find it quite astonishing how the West's view of the Arab world has gone from moral and sexual decadence to puritan religious conservativism in such a short period of time.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The country list was made by the Obama Administration. The current one merely used it. If you have a problem with the list, look to the DNC. They made it and that weapons deal which still wont be complete for at least a couple more years.

2. If we were to oppose anyone that has a poor human rights record, the majority of the countries would be on the list. All of the middle east. All of Africa. Nearly all of South America, Central America, and Asia. Politics is more complicated that merely standing up for what you believe in without compromise.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Scroatzilla]

It's really intellectually dishonest to invoke "Christianity" in this context. (Note: I do not consider myself a Christian.) Christianity has undergone a Reformation, and continues to do so. I get that the Bible has lots of questionable material-- and I get that there are still literalists-- but these are a minority of Christians and, further, a call to violence against non-believers has no place in that doctrine. Christianity has, indeed, "evolved."

On the other hand, it seems that many Muslims find themselves "stuck" in un-reformed flavors of their religion where speaking of reform can actually be dangerous. Violence, while not a prerogative of a majority of Muslims, is nevertheless a dominant and highly visible and encouraged component of that minority called "radical Islamists."

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see a problem with an irrational fear of someone because of their religion?

For the gay that's in mid-fall after being thrown from a 5-story building and the woman that was raped and is being stoned to death as punishment for being a victim, I'd say their fears are VERY real, and so are the fears of any nation's citizens whose government chooses to ignore all that and allow these violent 6th-century cult-member killers and rapists into their country unchecked.

Strat

There millions of Muslims in the US and the EU. And yet those stories aren't happening there. Strange. It's almost as if it's not the religion that's causing people to do these things...

But don't let perspective get in the way of your witch hunt. Carry on. Death to the Moors and Saracens (sorry, I mean Muslims) and all that.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[T.E.D.]

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.

You think incorrectly. Most Americans are against it.

American voters oppose 51 – 46 percent President Donald Trump’s order suspending for 90 days all travel to the U.S. from seven nations, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Voters oppose 60 – 37 percent President Trump’s order suspending immigration of all refugees from any nation to the U.S. for 120 days, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. Voters also oppose 70 – 26 percent Trump’s order suspending indefinitely all immigration of Syrian refugees to the U.S.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[BlueStrat]

Seriously, how the fuck can you support their "right" to teach hatred? Is be because you have some hatred towards the same groups?

"Politics makes for strange bedfellows."

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Large global shifts in power, economics, and cultures are typically only achieved on large scales in relatively-short periods of time during times of global chaos and war.

Those who scheme for such large and rapid shifts want a lot of violence and chaos to 'soften-up' the old systems, and think they can step in and assume power after all the various groups have done their work for them in destroying civil order and rule of law.

The fools on the Left think they can buy-off or somehow placate and control the radical Islamists after they've helped collapse the West, the US, and Israel. They will suffer the same fate they've allowed others to suffer at the hands of the Islamists. During the Cold War Khrushchev called such people in the West "useful idiots". An apt description.

Strat

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[david_thornley]

How is it OK to support the "freedom" of a religion that systematic oppresses women?

You're missing the mindset here. Everyone has freedom of religion, including Muslims. Various people do things I think bad, and attribute them to their religion. I blame the people, not the religion. There are Muslims who aren't interested in oppressing women. There are Christians who are very much in favor of oppressing women. I'm against the oppression of women by anyone.

Also, I can be strongly against something but be strongly against making it illegal. I believe neo-Nazis should have all the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[david_thornley]

You're talking about a matter of degree, not of kind. We have a lot of perfectly reasonable Muslims around the world, and a fair number of idiot Christians. The ratios differ, that's all.

Re: Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[david_thornley]

What do you mean by "play along"? I'm free to have my own opinions about people's beliefs and express them. It's only a problem when we want to prevent people from doing something due to their crazy beliefs.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[david_thornley]

Islam is not a death cult. The fact that there's a good fraction of a billion people who want to do horrible things to me isn't a concern to me as long as they can't do them. Banning an entire religion on the basis that a lot of them have horrible beliefs is wrong. Ban the people with the horrible beliefs. So far, the vetting process has done an excellent job of keeping terrorists masquerading as terrorists out of the US, and I don't see why we can't keep doing that.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Anonymous Coward]

There millions of Muslims in the US and the EU. And yet those stories aren't happening there.

LOLwut!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Protip: Propaganda lies have to have at least some believability to them and not be trivially & obviously disproved with almost no effort.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Uberbah]

It makes you a religious bigot, not a racist.

It's both, of course. Ask an islamophobe to physically describe a muslim and they'll give you one of two answers: someone who looks like an Arab, or someone who looks like a black African.

So, completely racist, same as people who cough their bigotry towards Latinos in terms of "illegal immigration", while being the descendants of European invaders.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[BlueStrat]

Banning an entire religion...

Beautiful strawman you've built there, but neither Trump's revised E.O. nor I said anything about "banning an entire religion".

So far, the vetting process has done an excellent job of keeping terrorists masquerading as terrorists out of the US, and I don't see why we can't keep doing that.

Yes, it's kept terrorists masquerading as terrorists out (LOL!) but there's no evidence it has kept out violent Islamic terrorists masquerading as refugees, as attacks sometimes take months or even a year or more to plan, coordinate, obtain resources, and execute.

Islam is not a death cult.

Wrong. It is an apocalyptic death-cult.

Check out the prophecies of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. It requires Muslims to wash the world in blood to prepare for the return of the 12th Imam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Many key power figures in the ME are adherents.

Strat

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[BlueStrat]

I read about this one extreme religion where if a woman gets raped, she must be stoned to death, because she clearly didn't scream loud enough. The same religion says that women should not speak, and must submit to their husbands. It also says you have to pluck out your own eyes if you look at a woman with lust. My personal favorite is that if your child talks back to you, you should definitely beat him, and if that doesn't work, you can have the elders stone him to death.

Sounds pretty bad, right? Maybe we need to ban everybody from that religion, too. Oh wait, that's all from Christianity. Better pack your fucking bags, asshole.

Ignorant, profane, and smugly so. What a jewel in humanity's crown you are.

What you describe is Old Testament...they way things were before Jesus. Christianity reformed from that 6th-century BS with the New Testament. Islam, however, has not reformed and still clings to the same savage, uncivilized, brutal, murderous, and unjust practices of 6th-century barbarians.

Makes me wonder how many Romans with your point of view welcomed in the barbarians that killed them.

Strat

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[clickety6]

Trump called the ruling âoea clear victory for our national security.â In a statement, he said: âoeAs president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm..."

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[clickety6]

1. So some things from the Obama administration are worth keeping then? 2. Selling them weapons is not politics - it's moral cowardice and greed.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[cold fjord]

... not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings.

True, it is mainly the ones that are in Islamic countries under Sharia law. Of course even Turkey isn't completely receptive at present either.

Turkish riot police crack down on banned Pride parade

Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

Half of the Countries Where Same-Sex Acts Are Prohibited Are Islamic; Death Penalty in 13

What can you say about this?

Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.

I doubt that you do, and to the extent that you could in a Catholic forum it wouldn't be consistent with church dogma which I expect will be more along the lines of homosexuality is an error, and disordered - hate the sin but love the sinner.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[mjwx]

The problem is that a religion is not a country. If you are afraid of a religion, you should also kick out those that are already there.
You should perhaps start with closing their store. Have them wear a crescent moon on their outer clothing. Rally them up. Planes are dangerous, so put them on trains.

The problem with that is that it requires a police state to motivate the racists, erm.. sorry, Patriots(TM) with no backbone to have the Bravery(R) to round the undermech up and ship them off for internment and re-education.

Without this, you have organisations like the English Defence League who claim they hate the way the Ebil Mooseslims(TM) treat their women but cant do anything stronger than shout abuse at any woman they see wearing a hijab between beating their own wives.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[david_thornley]

I can't provide better empirical evidence that the vetting process is working than to note that no refugee admitted has made a terrorist attack. You seem to take that as an indication that the vetting isn't good enough.

The Mahdi was not the Prophet, and attributing his prophecies to all Muslims is like saying all Christians acknowledge the Pope as their spiritual leader. The Mahdi cult has caused problems in the past, and doubtless will in the future, but it isn't really part of Islam as opposed to something many Muslims believe. Christians have their own apocalyptic death cults, although they generally await Armageddon rather than try to cause it.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[Raenex]

We have had large muslim populations in the USA for a long time and they have not pushed for women to be oppressed.

They keep it to their own communities, like female genital mutilation, making their women cover up, arranging marriages, and so on. As for the native women, they're fair game for sexual assaults and rape.

Re:Then.. fine, I'm a racist.

[werepants]

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?

Here's a question for you: what, historically, has been the result of systemic discrimination based on demographic markers? Here's a hint - the violence and turmoil over religious discrimination in England was problematic enough to drive people to sell all their belongings, buy a one-way ticket to a different continent, and try their luck at surviving in the wilderness. The US was founded on principles of religious freedom because the bloodshed and insanity of religious discrimination was a recent memory for the nation's architects.

We've all got to use different heuristics to try to get by in a very complex world. You are asserting one, justified by your emotions and personal anecdotes: "All Muslims are bad". I'll assert a different one, which is based on what I know of history: "Discriminating against entire populations never goes well."

Different

[Geoffrey.landis]

A statute, even one passed by Congress, is invalid if it abridges a constitutional right. Congress cannot give the president the power to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution.

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.

As has been pointed out many times elsewhere, the Obama restrictions may be "similar", but were not the same as the Trump restrictions:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

Re:Different

[dbrueck]

True, and those are good articles, but they merely take a look at differences in scope, duration, etc. in this set of travel restrictions vs earlier ones. They don't do anything to support the argument that the current EO violates any constitutional rights while the earlier ones did not. (Also, I know it's obvious, but the Constitution guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens - it makes no guarantees for others.)

The version of the EO in the lawsuit does not mention religion, it affects more than just Muslims, and it at most affects a tiny sliver of all Muslims in the world. Despite all this, some people are arguing that by singling out a handful of countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim, the ban is a de facto targeting based on religion. Because of this, earlier orders are relevant and it's not wrong to ask what it is about this one that is so wrong when its tests for application are either identical or very similar to those of earlier orders.

Look, Trump was pretty ham-fisted in this whole thing, and people were right to give him grief for bringing up religion in this context during the campaign. Bringing it up in the earlier versions of the EO wasn't as egregious, but it was good it's been removed entirely. Now that it's completely out of the EO, it's time for anti-Trump people to pick a new battle - there is way, way, waaaaay too much earlier precedent in support of this EO, such that it's hard to argue against this one while not calling out numerous past presidents from both parties without being completely disingenuous. People against Trump should pat themselves on the back for making him correct a mistake, but now it's really time to move on to something else.

Burden [Re:bona fide relationship]

[Geoffrey.landis]

"But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of traveling to the U.S." = Nearly impossible to prosecute/prove, unless they're extremely lazy/careless.

Indeed. But, of course, if somebody gets banned from travel to the US, the burden of proof to show that the relationship is "bona fide" is on the person traveling, not on the government.

Re: Burden [Re:bona fide relationship]

[that this is not und]

The process of exploring those relationships, conducted by an American official, is also known as the process of 'vetting', which was the original intent of the temporary ban.

Re:Waiting to hear

[HornWumpus]

Not all Muslims are Islamists. Only the ones who follow the religion's teachings literally.

Re:We'll see if Trump lasts that long

[oh_my_080980980]

Nothing Trump has done is impeachable. If you were to take your head out of your ass and actually make substantive criticisms based on POLICY, we'd get somewhere. But then you would also be exposing the corporate Democrats for being complicit. You know the 13 that voted against importing prescription drugs from Canada, while the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to, or the corporate Democrats that oppose medicare for all and go into Republican arguments for opposing it. Getting rid of Trump solves very little when the makeup of Congress remains unchanged.

So, what's the real reason for the ban?

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

The first amendment is irrelevant here

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Japan does not have a first amendment protecting freedom of religion.

The SCOTUS has also ruled that...

1. The US Constitution only applies inside of our borders.
2. The first amendment does not protect a foreigner from being deported for the content of their speech if the President declares it to be in the national interest to remove them.

Re:Waiting to hear

[guruevi]

The issue is not about religion, the order specifically targets a list of countries, the religious argument is a Democratic invention because the majority of people in most of those countries belong to one or another sect of Islam.

Re:Haha, EVERYONE has a claim to that though!

[bobbied]

How many people looking to emigrate can't cultivate a 'bona-fide' relationship with a legitimate person in the US sufficient to make this claim?

You need to read the actual order.. It actually addresses this idea. People who claim such relationships after being denied entry by the administration, will need to go to court to get the decision reversed. I expect the administration to quickly act on entry requests, but I don't suspect the appeals process will be a fast moving... So good luck with that...

Banned vs. Bombed

[moeinvt]

Countries affected by the travel ban:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran

Countries being bombed by the previous administration:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan

People are claiming that the current president does not have the legal authority to ban people from these countries from entering the U.S., but nobody questioned the previous president's legal authority to kill them?

Re:Banned vs. Bombed

[marquisdepolis]

I see what you're going for, but presumably the people entering the US as refugees are the people who are *running away* from the torturers who are being bombed.

Re:Banned vs. Bombed

[edtice1559]

If the situation in a country is so bad that we have to bomb them, seems that we have a moral obligation to accept refugees. In fact that would be the ideal way to reduce our military operations if we had to commit to taking a certain number of refugees per dropped bomb.

Re:Banned vs. Bombed

[rhazz]

but nobody questioned the previous president's legal authority to kill them?

Are you kidding? Search Slashdot articles for drone strikes - there was plenty of debate there.

Re:Banned vs. Bombed

[budgenator]

Countries affected by the travel ban:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran

Countries being bombed by the previous administration:
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan

People are claiming that the current president does not have the legal authority to ban people from these countries from entering the U.S., but nobody questioned the previous president's legal authority to kill them?

Touché, that is primarily why I find the Progressive's typical position on the matter so hypocritical.

Re:Waiting to hear

[dbrueck]

Agreed, but I think the point is just that the argument that it's a de facto ban based solely or primarily on religion is extremely weak at this point*, such that this case ends up being essentially identical to prior rulings in favor of presidential powers and national security.

* The key points are that (a) the EO in the lawsuit doesn't mention religion, (b) it doesn't affect the vast majority of Muslims in the world, and (c) the EO potentially affects people who aren't Muslims too. It seems like a stretch to argue that, as written, it's a Muslim ban.

"Relationship with a person or entity in the US"

[wisnoskij]

What legal standing does having a "relationship with a person or entity in the United States" grant someone? This seems like the most random amendment to add to the EO.

1 billion Muslims worldwide not affected at all

[mpercy]

How can it be a Muslim ban? If anything, it is a ban on people from certain countries believed to include large number of Islamists (which is to say, people who pretend to be Muslim as justification for their murderous ways). One billion Muslims not from those countries are not affected.

Islam is a religion of peace.

[mpercy]

And Brutus is an honorable man.

Discrimination by Nationality

[Roger W Moore]

Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.

That's complete rubbish. Federal law actively discriminates against people who are not US citizens and furthermore even divides non-US citizens up based on nationality: Canadian's don't need to be fingerprinted and photographed not do they need an ESTA online visa, Europeans and a few other nationalities get fingerprinted, photographed and have to apply for an online ESTA visa, other nationalities have to have full visas. Hence if two people turn up at the border with the identical paperwork one might be admitted and the other denied based solely on their nationality.

As a non-US citizen, I've no problem with this - every country does the same - but let's not pretend that there is no discrimination based solely on nationality because it is frequently the grounds on which most discrimination is made and for very sensible reasons.

Re:Why does a 90 day travel ban help us 90 days la

[mpercy]

You'd think, except the original injunction specifically prohibited the administration from even trying to develop said rules and procedures. That part of the injunction was only lifted on June 19th.

Re:Why does a 90 day travel ban help us 90 days la

[ThomasBHardy]

That's an interesting tidbit that had not made it into the main newsfeeds.

Thanks!

8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

[mpercy]

Trump largely could have avoided much of this by simply instructing SecState and/or AG to refrain from issuing waivers to 1182 and strictly enforcing same.

E.g. how many Syrians could produce proper paperwork for "documentation of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall include at least the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices"

Or

(A) In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In generalAny alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

Or

Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible

Or

Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(i) In general
Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

Or

Public charge
(A) In general
Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

Re: Waiting to hear

[KGIII]

To be fair, Trump repeatedly used the phrase, 'Muslim ban.'

I can't really blame them for the attempt to paint it as such.

Noi law against Hyperbole

[s.petry]

I hear people say things like "they got their face smashed in" which is not literally true. We call this exaggeration, and in politics it's called hyperbole.

If you want to go back to Obama's campaign rhetoric, I can find just as many claims he made using the same type of hyperbole. Bush did the same, as did Clinton, Bush, and even the great Reagan.

If you want to make a claim that Trump's administration can't craft laws because he used hyperbole, then start back cancelling every damn law on the books. You can start with the ACA.

Or perhaps, read the actual proposals and EOs which are detailed and not simple campaign rhetoric and demand that Judges and Justices rule on what people do as opposed to what they said prior to drafting legislation.

ps. ACA still should be put in the dumpster immediately, but not because of the political hyperbole surrounding it's pre-Law days.

Re:Noi law against Hyperbole

[KGIII]

I am only citing the probable reason for their claim.

Re:Noi law against Hyperbole

[s.petry]

I was answering that position, regardless of who owns it.

So, nothing changes?

[Timothy2.0]

"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.""

So, pretty much, border guards can reject anyone who doesn't have a legitimate reason to cross the border...just like they always could...

Re:What did the court say?

[ganjadude]

activist judges, and SCOTUS seems to have called them out on their shenanigans

Great, except

[s.petry]

US Constitutional Rights do not apply to people who are not citizens of the US. The US guarantees Free Speech to it's citizens. We can not provide the same protection to people in any other country. We can not guarantee a right to bear arms for people in Australia, and we can not guarantee a right to be secure in your person in Iran.

It is up to those people living under oppressive systems to overthrow their Governments and establish a Constitutional Republic like our founders did 220 years ago (give or take) if they so choose. Many people are content to live under tyranny, or create their own when they gain power.

Re:Great, except

[david_thornley]

Most US Constitutional rights apply to everyone. The people who wrote the Constitution had no problem with the word "citizen", and they used it sparingly. There can be no laws in the country abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, establishing (i.e., favoring) any religion, even ones affecting non-citizens only.

The limit is that the Constitution only applies to parts of the world controlled by the US, so non-US citizens in other countries have no effective rights under it.

Re:Great, except

[s.petry]

Most US Constitutional rights apply to everyone.

FALSE! You are reading it wrong, if you read it at all. I demonstrated where that could not possibly be true with the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment. The 3rd can not apply to a non-citizen, nor can the 3rd, 5th, 6th. At least one party must be a Citizen for any of the 7th or 8th to apply, and the 9th and 10th are for States who are subject to the US Federal system.

In more simple terms, you are doing what we call "talking out your ass", because you are simply making a false claim.

You are correct that the founders knew the word citizen, but also assuming that everyone around them was a moron would could not determine anything without the word. There is this thing called "common sense", which you have to apply to all writings. When in doubt, refer to the Federalist papers.

Re:Great, except

[david_thornley]

The First says that there will be no laws restricting freedom of speech etc. It does not have exemptions for non-citizens. The second says "the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed". There's no reason to assume that only US citizens would be part of a militia. There is nothing in international law that compels people to fight only in the armed forces of a country they're citizens of. The Third applies to houses and their Owners, and there's no reason why a non-citizen can't own a house in the US. The Fourth starts with "the right of the people", and says nothing about citizenship. The Fifth starts with "No person", not "No citizen". The Sixth applies to "the accused" in "all criminal prosecutions". It's certainly possible for non-citizens to commit a crime in this country. The Seventh specifies a jury in civil cases, and a non-citizen can be sued and can sue in US courts. The Eighth applies to criminal cases, again not a specialty of citizens. The Ninth says nothing about states. I didn't find the word "citizen" in any of them.

Obviously, the US Constitution, as amended, does not apply everywhere in the world. It does apply to the parts of the world the US does control, which is just common sense, but there's no "common sense" way to show that "This shall not happen" means "This shall not happen to citizens".

The Federalist papers were propaganda, designed to make people want the Constitution ratified. They aren't an impartial commentary on the Constitution.

Re:Great, except

[s.petry]

Since the US can not prosecute people in a foreign land and can not protect people in a foreign land. Your claim about universal law fails basic scrutiny. Your description of the Federalist papers is absolutely false. They are primarily letters between the founders regarding wording and concepts. The anti-Federalist papers are the same, and not really anti-Federalism but more concerned with the amount of power the Federal Government was given.

Remember that bit I said about common sense? Not only did you just flat out lie, but you seem to lack common sense.

Re:Great, except

[david_thornley]

Since the US can not prosecute people in a foreign land and can not protect people in a foreign land.

That was never in dispute. You claimed that the Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens. I'm claiming it does, provided the non-citizen is in US territory. Obviously, in another country, the Constitution can only govern the behavior of US government agents. Similarly, a citizen of North Korea doesn't have free speech in North Korea, and neither does a citizen of the USA, but they both have freedom of speech in the US.

Your claim about universal law fails basic scrutiny.

Good thing I never made one in this thread, then.

Your description of the Federalist papers is absolutely false. They are primarily letters between the founders regarding wording and concepts.

Really? You do have to show me bios of all the Founding Fathers named "Publius", since they're all signed that way, and so if they were private letters they had to be from people named "Publius". Or you could apply a little common sense and realize that that was a pseudonym to hide who wrote it (multiple individuals, in this case), and notice that they were published instead of being directed to individuals. It appears that you're either totally lacking in common sense or have no idea what you're talking about.

I can't comment on the Anti-Federalist Papers (I bought a book on them and never got around to reading it).

Remember that bit I said about common sense? Not only did you just flat out lie, but you seem to lack common sense.

You're psychologically projecting.

Re:Great, except

[s.petry]

That was never in dispute. You claimed that the Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens.

Which is true, by the simple fact that the US does not have any authority over non-citizens.

One could rightly state that "part" of the Declaration of Independence is a universal proclamation for all peoples (all people are created equal with natural rights) the remainder of that document is key. It is up to the people to reorganize or disband a government which denies people their Natural Rights. The founders did that for the citizens of the USA, but it is simply impossible for that same action to cover the globe.

I can't comment on the Anti-Federalist Papers (I bought a book on them and never got around to reading it).

Remember that bit I said about common sense? Not only did you just flat out lie, but you seem to lack common sense.

You're psychologically projecting.

You didn't read the work by your own admission, yet claim to have common sense on the subject. How much can a 7th grader who has barely studied algebra teach us about differential equations? Yeah, that is a problem with your logic.

Re:Great, except

[david_thornley]

The US has no authority over non-citizens not in the US (although there are government officials who seem to think otherwise), but the US definitely has authority over non-US citizens in US territory. A citizen of another country has certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution while in the US.

Common sense would suggest that I'm correct in commenting on stuff I've read, and not stuff I haven't, and that's why I corrected you on the Federalist Papers and said nothing about the Anti-Federalist Papers. It would, for example, suggest that you not talk about the Federalist Papers, just as it suggests I not talk about the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Re:Why does a 90 day travel ban help us 90 days la

[ganjadude]

they werent allowed to do anything while there was a hold, now we gotta start over

Well Done SCOTUS

[Ferretman]

This is right and appropriate given the explicit power given to the President. Reviewing by SCOTUS is the obvious next step.

Ferret

Re:8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

[Shotgun]

Instructing the Sec of State is exactly what an Executive Order is, and rephrasing it as you state would have garnered the same response. This whole issue has followed the same pattern I've watched for years where conservatives attempt to implement a measured response, and the liberal leaning media go apocalyptic on it. No matter how carefully crafted the current admin worded an order to curtail muslim terrorist, the left was itching for a fight to shout it down.

Re:8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

[david_thornley]

Strange....I've been seeing liberals pushing for reasonable policies and measured responses, and the conservatives go ballistic.

The trouble isn't the pejorative mindset

[rsilvergun]

The problem is this line:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

It's a Muslim ban. Trump has publicly said so. I don't see how that can be anything else but a law respecting the establishment of religion. You can argue it's the President doing it, but the President only enforces laws (occasionally with some interpretation). Basically, he doesn't have the authority to bypass Congress here, which is why he wasn't mentioned by name.

Hate crimes exist to enforce the law in places

[rsilvergun]

where it wasn't being enforced. Places where 'no jury would convict him'. They're an artifact of our incredibly fucked up system of government who's main goal was never justice but protecting the land rights of the wealthy (which is why we have a Senate, look it up).

Nationality, not religion

[rsilvergun]

I'll just leave this here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Re:Nationality, not religion

[Roger W Moore]

"Establishment of a religion" means making a religion the official state religion and giving it some say in the running of the country e.g. England has the "Lords Spiritual" who are a subset of the Church of England bishops. Establishing a religion is completely independent of whether members of a particular religion may, or may not, enter a country as the UK shows: there is no restriction of religion for those entering despite the fact that there is an establish religion.

The bit I think you want is the next phrase "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so how about I just leave that there for you? ;-)

Wrong

[rsilvergun]

the feds are also suppose to regulate interstate commerce; and in a modern civilization that is orders of magnitude more complex.

Besides, trust me, you don't want federalism. If you think you're having trouble standing up to Mega corps now wait until the biggest thing you have to stand up to them is a State Government. Remember Join or Die? Mega corps are the modern day monarchy. They'll eat your alive piece by piece.

It's not about them being non-citizens

[rsilvergun]

it's about a law defacto establishing a state religion (Christianity). We're not protecting the immigrants, we're protecting the citizens from having Christianity forced on them by the rule of law.

That's nice and all

[rsilvergun]

but I don't want it being done on religious grounds. It's a terrifying precedence. We're effectively establishing a defacto state religion. This isn't a slippery slope, it's the bloody K-12 from Better Off Dead.

Re:That's nice and all

[Raenex]

Excluding a hateful ideology is not establishing a state religion. Islam is a "religion" that results in terror and authoritarianism all around the world, and it should be treated as such.

Evil bit - RFC 3514

[bingoUV]

1. The most dangerous ones can easily pretend to be non-Muslim, or having converted to Christianity to enter the US and wreak havoc. So security improvement argument doesn't hold much. See the solution to all computer security problems : Evil bit.

2. If the country (say the US) wants to prohibit wife hitting, they should prohibit wife hitting. Why the round-about way of reducing the number of Muslims brought in from abroad ? This will protect against lunatics , whether Muslim or followers of phalrehuq religion, whether already in the country or coming in from abroad.

In even more generality, just prohibit hitting.

3. Practically, being an interconnected country and the world - we are in more danger from people being offended in a real or perceived fashion. So this unnecessary, insufficient "ban" would make the country even more insecure from the people having say business or family impact from this move.

Re:Hey Mods!

[dcw3]

You expect mods to pay attn. to an AC, who very well could be the same as the OP? Get a grip.

Re:"Relationship with a person or entity in the US

[wisnoskij]

Hmm, it still seems rather random. Obviously, a "reasonable relationship" does not involve importing this foreign national through the border and skipping customs.
Also the way it is worded it sounds like simply having an arch nemesis in America, would qualify. AKA, the intent of someone in America wanting the foreign national to come is not part of the this addendum, simply them having some form of relationship (negative or positive) is.

Re:8 U.S. Code 1152

[GLMDesigns]

Now you're purposely misunderstanding the issue.

This applies to immigration officials. It DOES NOT limit the powers granted the president and it's utter foolishness to pretend that it does.

Re:You forgot the Trail of Tears? SMH

[mysidia]

That is not a (mangled) quote to trot out with pride nor should we forget the lives which were cost because the President ignored SCOTUS decisions.

The point is not whether or not the president did a moral thing in that instance. Only that the president DOES have that power and capability. Also, it is a Non-Seqitur / false argument that ignoring a SCOTUS decision causes loss of life.