Federal judge halts Trump travel ban nationwide

[dan987]

Please read earlier in the thread where I cited case law establishing that, yes, even illegal aliens in the US are protected under certain parts of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the establishment clause says what it says. It doesn't matter who the law applies to.

I think the more important question is about those that came to the US and then were denied with their visas. What about someone with a green card - is it unconstitutional to deny them entry?

[7rmr]

im sure that portion of the bill is part of a larger bill
Jakes on them though, they should be investing their own money as the threat is always there, regardless of a law

I worry more about the second repeal of the glass Stegal act more than any fudicary wording

Listen, i truly believe trump when he says he cares about America and I don't believe the left or the right when they say the same. Again, I think they worry about themselves and those who bought them, not you or I

Time will tell

I love this kind of Trumpers logic.

"Oh, I'm sure this thing that is obviously terrible is actually a good thing. I I know that because Trump could never do anything wrong."

[dhawkeye1980]

Please read earlier in the thread where I cited case law establishing that, yes, even illegal aliens in the US are protected under certain parts of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the establishment clause says what it says. It doesn't matter who the law applies to.

As a final point, I think I'm the only one who has cited caselaw in this thread. Which is strange since this is a thread about a judicial decision.

I guess just hurling personal insults is just as good though.

8 US code 1182


Suck a fat D

[dhawkeye1980]

I love this kind of Trumpers logic.

"Oh, I'm sure this thing that is obviously terrible is actually a good thing. I I know that because Trump could never do anything wrong."

So why wasnt there a TRO when obama blocked iranians in 2011?

[7rmr]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm..._medium=social

And boom suck it libs

So the White House will go back to court to ask for a temporary stay while this issue is appealed.

Not sure what you're getting excited about.

Its pretty unlikely the stay will be granted since people are suffering real harm with the law in place and there is no harm to allowing the decision to remain while it's under appeal.

[7rmr]

So why wasnt there a TRO when obama blocked iranians in 2011?

I think you mean Iraq. And he didn't.

[7rmr]

8 US code 1182


Suck a fat D

And yet that doesn't override the Constitution, which is what this decision was based on.


Please keep trying though.

[dhawkeye1980]

I think you mean Iraq. And he didn't.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breit...ndroid-verizon

More proof all liberals r idiots

[NYPat]

So why wasnt there a TRO when obama blocked iranians in 2011?

Because he didn't?

Jesus you are fuking dumb.

[7rmr]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breit...ndroid-verizon

More proof all liberals r idiots

The article is about Iraqis. And, no he didn't.

[dhawkeye1980]

The article is about Iraqis. And, no he didn't.

Okay so iraqis then. And yes he did, and cuban refugees in 2015. Morons i swear proof is literally fuqing you in the ass and you keep saying no just fukkin lmao

[MuscleXtreme]

Please read earlier in the thread where I cited case law establishing that, yes, even illegal aliens in the US are protected under certain parts of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the establishment clause says what it says. It doesn't matter who the law applies to.

As a final point, I think I'm the only one who has cited caselaw in this thread. Which is strange since this is a thread about a judicial decision.

I guess just hurling personal insults is just as good though.

You are intentionally being misleading or just ****ing stupid. Constitutional rights are not granted to any tard in the world if they are not physically here. Got it? My Constitution doesn't just magically extend over to you in your ****ty nation just because you exist.

Just quit this thread.

[7rmr]

You are intentionally being misleading or just ****ing stupid. Constitutional rights are not granted to any tard in the world if they are not physically here. Got it? My Constitution doesn't just magically extend over to you in your ****ty nation just because you exist.

Just quit this thread.

For one, the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it just restricts government powers.

Two, there is plenty of case law, some in this thread, discussing the limits of US government actions on non-citizens

[7rmr]

Okay so iraqis then. And yes he did, and cuban refugees in 2015. Morons i swear proof is literally fuqing you in the ass and you keep saying no just fukkin lmao

He increased the time for processing the applications, but Iraqis were still admitted during the 6 month period you are referring to.

[sawoobley]

Please read earlier in the thread where I cited case law establishing that, yes, even illegal aliens in the US are protected under certain parts of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the establishment clause says what it says. It doesn't matter who the law applies to.

As a final point, I think I'm the only one who has cited caselaw in this thread. Which is strange since this is a thread about a judicial decision.

I guess just hurling personal insults is just as good though.

Sure, certain parts of the constitution that deal with basic human rights and nothing to do with the travel ban.

[MuscleXtreme]

For one, the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it just restricts government powers.

Two, there is plenty of case law, some in this thread, discussing the limits of US government actions on non-citizens

Listen you dolt. You a non-citizen in Canada do not magically get granted Constitutional rights solely because you exist.

As a non-citizen you have to physically be in the US and even then it's limited.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[sawoobley]

Listen you dolt. You a non-citizen in Canada do not magically get granted Constitutional rights solely because you exist.
As a non-citizen you have to physically be in the US and even then it's limited.
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

He's a Canadian lawyer. Have some respect!

[7rmr]

Sure, certain parts of the constitution that deal with basic human rights and nothing to do with the travel ban.

Except the 5th amendment is one such part of the Constitution being invoked in reference to the travel ban.

And the Supreme Court rules even before the 20th century that it applied to non citizens.

[ceizer1985]

He increased the time for processing the applications, but Iraqis were still admitted during the 6 month period you are referring to.

Yeah.

WHAT'S TRUE: In 2011 the State Department's issuance of SIVs to Iraqi applicants slowed after two individuals in Kentucky were identified as having possibly been improperly screened; multiple national news outlets reported on the State Department visa processing slowdown while it was occurring and in subsequent years.

WHAT'S FALSE: Neither President Obama nor the State Department banned or stopped those applications entirely; the slowdown affected a single type of visa from a single country (and not all entry from several countries); the slowdown occurred in order to implement enhanced screening procedures, which remained in place in January 2017.

http://www.snopes.com/president-obama-ban-muslims-2011/

[7rmr]

Listen you dolt. You a non-citizen in Canada do not magically get granted Constitutional rights solely because you exist.

As a non-citizen you have to physically be in the US and even then it's limited.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

And yet I'm the only one who has posted US caselaw in this thread to make my point.

[7rmr]

He's a Canadian lawyer. Have some respect!

Using US caselaw to make my point instead of baseless claims.

[dhawkeye1980]

He increased the time for processing the applications, but Iraqis were still admitted during the 6 month period you are referring to.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breit...ndroid-verizon

Typical left fukking hypocrit obamas bans were the same u just loved sukkin obamas cock so,it was okay

[sawoobley]

Except the 5th amendment is one such part of the Constitution being invoked in reference to the travel ban.

And the Supreme Court rules even before the 20th century that it applied to non citizens.

Trump didn't ban people based on their religion but rather the country they were from. You can say otherwise but you know that is the truth.

[MuscleXtreme]

And yet I'm the only one who has posted US caselaw in this thread to make my point.

According to your logic a British citizen can sue their government because their gun ban is in violation of his 2nd amendment rights granted to him by the US constitution.


You've gone full retard.

[dhawkeye1980]

And yet I'm the only one who has posted US caselaw in this thread to make my point.

Except those dont apply i posted the US code giving him legal authority to ban in the name of nation security so eat a D

[7rmr]

According to your logic a British citizen can sue their government because their gun ban is in violation of his 2nd amendment rights granted to him by the US constitution.


You've gone full retard.

I never said that or even implied anything like that. Sad

[7rmr]

Except those dont apply i posted the US code giving him legal authority to ban in the name of nation security so eat a D

And that statute doesn't override the Constitution.

[MuscleXtreme]

I never said that or even implied anything like that. Sad

That's what your entire logic is. I'm glad that now you're starting to see the absurdity of your retard logic.

[dan987]

Doing some research, you aren't technically in the US until after you've been processed and admitted into the US. So if you're not admitted at an airport, you're not in US soil technically - aka the constitution doesn't apply if you're a non-citizen. And since non-citizens have to follow immigration law - the executive branch has full authority to not allow them in.

Now... how this judge said constitutional rights were violated I still don't understand... they're non-citizens and they were banned from the country.

As for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that's referring to people living in the US and is irrelevant in this discussion.

[sawoobley]

Using US caselaw to make my point instead of baseless claims.

You threw out a case without any discussion of how it applies to this specific situation. We are just suppose to review the case and guess what you meant by it.

I believe the case was about Chinese citizens who had permanent residence in the United States who were doing business outside the Chinese government and who had a kid in the U.S. which was granted automatic citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Not relevant to the discussion.