The Trump Administration's War With Reality

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:That's the point. Due process assumes those impacted have standing and are within the court's jurisdiction.

The President who issued an order is within the court's jurisdiction.

The TSA and ICE agents who were implementing that order are within the court's jurisdiction.

The green card holders who were being denied entry without any stated grounds for suddenly overturning their legal immigration status are within the court's jurisdiction.

The US citizens whose family members were suddenly being denied the right to come and see them are within the court's jurisdiction.

Do I need to continue?

These are foreign nationals who are not even in the US. When the President acts in accord with his authority to limit immigration,

There are limits on how he may choose to do that. He grossly exceeded them in multiple ways. (Arbitrarily revoking already granted legal immigration status from an entire class of people with no due process, wording the order such that it imposed a de facto religious test for expedited entry... )

No, you need not continue. Denying valid green card holders with re-entry permits entry is indeed a problem. As I under stand the issue, the EO would not have included those people as it was being implemented. This was part of the testimony before the 9th Circuit.

Family members of American citizens who themselves are not American citizens are not guaranteed entry to the US. They may apply for entry and permanent residency with preference, but are not entitled to it. My grandmother was denied entry because she was determined to have a mental illness. Nervous breakdowns do happen when one lives through WWII Japanese occupation.

Again, the EO was targeted at those people who have not already obtained entry from those listed 7 nations. By allowing the stay the 9th Circuit asserts the President cannot limit immigration in such a way. The ruling asserts the court's consent is required to implement immigration policy. That is not what Article 1 section 8 states.

Michael Everett wrote:Why am I suddenly reminded of the Babylon 5 episode "The Illusion Of Truth" (S4 Ep08)?

Seriously, if you haven't seen it, look it up. I heard it's actually been used in several media studies courses to show how easy it is to edit and re-purpose answers for nefarious purposes.

You´re reminded of it because that´s standard procedure for Fox news.
And, they´re getting worse.

There´s not even a sliver of plausible deniability this time.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:There are limits on how he may choose to do that. He grossly exceeded them in multiple ways. (Arbitrarily revoking already granted legal immigration status from an entire class of people with no due process, wording the order such that it imposed a de facto religious test for expedited entry... )

No, you need not continue. Denying valid green card holders with re-entry permits entry is indeed a problem. As I under stand the issue, the EO would not have included those people as it was being implemented.

The EO DID include those people. That's just the reality. It said what it said.

This was part of the testimony before the 9th Circuit.

Which the court rejected.

Family members of American citizens who themselves are not American citizens are not guaranteed entry to the US. They may apply for entry and permanent residency with preference, but are not entitled to it. My grandmother was denied entry because she was determined to have a mental illness. Nervous breakdowns do happen when one lives through WWII Japanese occupation.

Again, the EO was targeted at those people who have not already obtained entry from those listed 7 nations.

No. It was not.

It could have been, if it had been written differently. But it wasn't written differently. It said what it said.

Maybe they should have consulted some of the legal departments who job it is to advise on these things? But they didn't.... with their usual level of incompetence.

Just as the 9th circuit rejected the administration's testimony, I reject your argument.

PeterZ, you do understand the very basic concept that the 9th's stay merely indicates that the EO may be unconstitutional and that the status quo should be maintained (IE: pre EO) until the constitutionality is decided.


In absolutely no way, shape, or form does it say that the courts permission is needed to enact immigration policy.

But that policy has to be constitutional. Or at least the enacting paperwrk does.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:PeterZ, you do understand the very basic concept that the 9th's stay merely indicates that the EO may be unconstitutional and that the status quo should be maintained (IE: pre EO) until the constitutionality is decided.


In absolutely no way, shape, or form does it say that the courts permission is needed to enact immigration policy.

But that policy has to be constitutional. Or at least the enacting paperwrk does.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I do. But that stay asserts that the change in policy which is fully within the scope of the Constitutional powers delegated to the President by Congress is subject to how judges believe non-citizen, non-resident aliens who are not even in the country are impacted by said change in policy. Any judge anywhere can issue the stay on behalf of aliens who have engagements within the US.

The 9th Circuit's ruling asserts that this change in policy is unlikely to be seen as Constitutional by SCOTUS. The agree with the lower court that the perceived threat viewed by the President does not either exist or exceed their threshold. That part of the 9th Circuits reasoning absolutely does assert the Court's role in consenting to policy changes. The 9th Circuit said the Administration has not shown that a threat exists asserts that the court requires evidence before it allows the Administration to use its delegated powers to change the status quo.

I don't believe this will hold up in a full SCOTUS review, but pending that the new standard for changing immigration and travel rules impacting non-resident aliens requires at least the tacit acceptance of every judge in the country. If some judge within the 9th Circuit of Appeals decides to issue a stay, it will stick.

PeterZ wrote:I do. But that stay asserts that the change in policy which is fully within the scope of the Constitutional powers delegated to the President by Congress

They ruled it wasn't fully within that scope.

You keep declaring they said it was within the scope AND struck it down at the same time. A nonsensical assertion.

Denying valid green card holders with re-entry permits entry is indeed a problem.

Remember typing that? Why do you keep acting like you don't know it? (Or don't know that he also wrote the EO in such a way as to establish a de-facto religious test for immigration entry... another no-no?)

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I do. But that stay asserts that the change in policy which is fully within the scope of the Constitutional powers delegated to the President by Congress

They ruled it wasn't fully within that scope.

You keep declaring they said it was within the scope AND struck it down at the same time. A nonsensical assertion.

Denying valid green card holders with re-entry permits entry is indeed a problem.

Remember typing that? Why do you keep acting like you don't know it? (Or don't know that he also wrote the EO in such a way as to establish a de-facto religious test for immigration entry... another no-no?)

Since SCOTUS is the law of the land and all that's happened is that lower courts have weighed in, the 9th Circuit is simply the penultimate opinion. They can still be wrong and I can still disagree with a chance for my disagreement to be correct.

I do recall typing that. I also noted that the administration testified they were not going to prohibit green card holders with re-entry permits from entering the country, even if they came from that part of the world.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Remember typing that? Why do you keep acting like you don't know it? (Or don't know that he also wrote the EO in such a way as to establish a de-facto religious test for immigration entry... another no-no?)

Since SCOTUS is the law of the land and all that's happened is that lower courts have weighed in, the 9th Circuit is simply the penultimate opinion. They can still be wrong and I can still disagree with a chance for my disagreement to be correct.

I do recall typing that. I also noted that the administration testified they were not going to prohibit green card holders with re-entry permits from entering the country, even if they cam from that part of the world.

The legality of the EO does not depend on what the White House claims would happen. It depends on what was written on the piece of paper with Trump's signature on it.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Since SCOTUS is the law of the land and all that's happened is that lower courts have weighed in, the 9th Circuit is simply the penultimate opinion. They can still be wrong and I can still disagree with a chance for my disagreement to be correct.

I do recall typing that. I also noted that the administration testified they were not going to prohibit green card holders with re-entry permits from entering the country, even if they cam from that part of the world.

The legality of the EO does not depend on what the White House claims would happen. It depends on what was written on the piece of paper with Trump's signature on it.

No it depends on what judges say is legal. So far we have 1 more stage to go.