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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Shotgun]

I believe that was Andrew Jackson.

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?

[ganjadude]

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

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?

[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?

[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."

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

[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.

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?

[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: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/

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.

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

[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

[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: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."

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: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:So now it only affects tourists?

[__aaclcg7560]

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

They make money.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

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: 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.

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

[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.

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: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: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? ;-)