Federal judge halts Trump travel ban nationwide

[5x10]

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."

how is a temporary ban a terrible idea?

Actually, nevermind, it's your opinion and idgas

[dhawkeye1980]

And that statute doesn't override the Constitution.

Constitution doesnt apply to refugees

[dan987]

Hmm so the 14th amendment is kind of interesting...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Depending on how someone interprets it, it could apply to anyone under the juresdiction of the US so even at the border. But then again, this is referring to states?

[A-GAME]

[|ceman]

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

Because he didn't block refugees. Stop reading fake news breitbart.

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

Again, breitbart is such biased fake news that it's not even a valid source. They have zero journalistic standards. Quote AP, Reuters, NYT, or other actual news sources.

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

the presidents legal authority is not greater than the constitution.

What you're describing is a king or dictator. Which we don't have here in the US.

[VinnyPazRules]

Paper full of he said, she said? Check.
Lack of clarity of what constitutional right was violated? Check.
Lack of precedent? Check.
Suspect source? Check.

Congratulations, your article has a 99.99% chance of falling under the category of Fake News!

maybe he read it in the same paper ms kelly anne conway read about the burger king massacre?

[7rmr]

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

No, I specifically listed the sections of the Constitution I was referring to and I described how the case law applies. You're just choosing to ignore that.

[7rmr]

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.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about. When you are in the US you are in the US. It doesn't matter that you ahvent been admitted yet.

That's an administrative issue, not a constitutional one

[zinkhan99]

Again, breitbart is such biased fake news that it's not even a valid source. They have zero journalistic standards. Quote AP, Reuters, NYT, or other actual news sources.
the presidents legal authority is not greater than the constitution.

Sure, we have already seen the journalistic standards of NYT in the past year. Just lmao

[SillieBazzillie]

Sure, we have already seen the journalistic standards of NYT in the past year. Just lmao

You laugh at the NYT yet embrace Breitbart? Hahahahahahahaha

[KT667]

and i thought amercians would smarten up after they see whats happening here with us in europe


guess i was wrong 👎

[dhawkeye1980]

Because he didn't block refugees. Stop reading fake news breitbart.

Again, breitbart is such biased fake news that it's not even a valid source. They have zero journalistic standards. Quote AP, Reuters, NYT, or other actual news sources.
the presidents legal authority is not greater than the constitution.

What you're describing is a king or dictator. Which we don't have here in the US.

Its greater than the caselaw that was posted. Breitbart is a legit news site, its only left wing idiots like you that doesnt accept facts. Yes it was a ban and yes he also banned cubans and carter banned iraninans, clinton did a ban and reagan. No riots then but yet all of a sudden its an issue when trump does it? Its simpky the continued tempor tantrum of the left and TBH the right is getting pretty sick of it. You dont want us to finally put our foot down i guarantee it

[MuscleXtreme]

No, I specifically listed the sections of the Constitution I was referring to and I described how the case law applies. You're just choosing to ignore that.

Again you have no idea what you're talking about. Your logic is absurd. As I already pointed out.


According to your retard logic, people in Germany are automatically granted the protections of the Constitution and therefore can't be prosecuted there for denying the Holocaust.

[KINGFABIAN]

Breitbart is a legit news site

This explains everything. Triggered dhawkeye1980 dropping brietbart articles on here like if they are wisdom bombs. The website is the equivalent of the National Enquirer. Wow trumps supporters are really dumb as bricks just lol. I mean on par with believing "WWF wrestling is real " levels of retardation. Our country is screwed that we have such a large base of derps supporters. Just wow....

[dhawkeye1980]

This explains everything. Triggered dhawkeye1980 dropping brietbart articles on here like if they are wisdom bombs. The website is the equivalent of the National Enquirer. Wow trumps supporters are really dumb as bricks just lol. I mean on par with believing "WWF wrestling is real " levels of retardation. Our country is screwed that we have such a large base of derps supporters. Just wow....

Guess i would rather get my news from a place that snoopes calls fake (who contributed to killarys campaign fyi) but unlike liberals i check multiple sources. As soon as some left wing chit news comes out and makes a point to say obamas bans are different then trumps i know they are exactly tye same lmfao. You left are such tards

[7rmr]

Again you have no idea what you're talking about. Your logic is absurd. As I already pointed out.


According to your retard logic, people in Germany are automatically granted the protections of the Constitution and therefore can't be prosecuted there for denying the Holocaust.

Interestingly enough, I never said that or implied anything like that. I see you're not fully grasping this discussion though, hence the reason you keep coming up with very strange examples

[beowulf10]

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.

MuscleXtreme, you are simple wrong and ignorant of your own history. It is my sincere hope you study the same Enlightenment age philosophers that the founding fathers studied. The founding fathers tended to believe that all human beings had inalienable rights which are theirs by virtue of existing, and that governments did not "grant" rights.

With regard to the practical application of this philosophy the Courts have consistently ruled that non-citizens have nearly the same rights as citizens.

It is YOU who has absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

What you need to do is stfu, and go to the library, and start reading. You are an ignorant person. And I don't say that to be rude. You simply lack knowledge.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscons...constindex.htm

This article deals with illegal immigrants, but the same cases apply to every immigrant and visitor, legal or not.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term� The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

It's All About Equal Protection

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to the language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment.

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

While undocumented workers do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, undocumented workers are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

[beowulf10]

Interestingly enough, I never said that or implied anything like that. I see you're not fully grasping this discussion though, hence the reason you keep coming up with very strange examples

I am so glad you are my neighbor. Thank you. I wish more Americans were like you, and actually read the history books.

There is a reason we share the world's longest undefended border.

[dhawkeye1980]

MuscleXtreme, you are simple wrong and ignorant of your own history. It is my sincere hope you study the same Enlightenment age philosophers that the founding fathers studied. The founding fathers tended to believe that all human beings had inalienable rights which are theirs by virtue of existing, and that governments did not "grant" rights.

With regard to the practical application of this philosophy the Courts have consistently ruled that non-citizens have nearly the same rights as citizens.

It is YOU who has absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

What you need to do is stfu, and go to the library, and start reading. You are an ignorant person. And I don't say that to be rude. You simply lack knowledge.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscons...constindex.htm

This article deals with illegal immigrants, but the same cases apply to every immigrant and visitor, legal or not.

A chinese immigrant is not the same as a refugee not even in country you dolt. And the constitution applies if they are caught in the legal system i.e. right to miranda and 5th amendment.

[oldvhs]

Again, breitbart is such biased fake news that it's not even a valid source. They have zero journalistic standards. Quote AP, Reuters, NYT, or other actual news sources.

lmao you think NYT is a credible source?

[|ceman]

Its greater than the caselaw that was posted. Breitbart is a legit news site, its only left wing idiots like you that doesnt accept facts. Yes it was a ban and yes he also banned cubans and carter banned iraninans, clinton did a ban and reagan. No riots then but yet all of a sudden its an issue when trump does it? Its simpky the continued tempor tantrum of the left and TBH the right is getting pretty sick of it. You dont want us to finally put our foot down i guarantee it

breitbart is opinion and entertainment for the right. It's not legit news and has no journalistic standards. It posts opinion and suspicion as fact and has a super partisan agenda.

A chinese immigrant is not the same as a refugee not even in country you dolt. And the constitution applies if they are caught in the legal system i.e. right to miranda and 5th amendment.

This thread makes me laugh. An American with an 8th grade education (you) trying to explain the constitution and law to others who clearly comprehend it better, including a lawyer (7rmr)

But that's typical for afraid trump supporters who are running scared from the facts.

lmao you think NYT is a credible source?

yes and it's the most trusted news source in the US (even if trump keeps tweeting otherwise) the NYT has had a big upsurge in paid subscribers in the past year in fact

[MuscleXtreme]

Interestingly enough, I never said that or implied anything like that. I see you're not fully grasping this discussion though, hence the reason you keep coming up with very strange examples

MuscleXtreme, you are simple wrong and ignorant of your own history. It is my sincere hope you study the same Enlightenment age philosophers that the founding fathers studied. The founding fathers tended to believe that all human beings had inalienable rights which are theirs by virtue of existing, and that governments did not "grant" rights.

With regard to the practical application of this philosophy the Courts have consistently ruled that non-citizens have nearly the same rights as citizens.

It is YOU who has absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

What you need to do is stfu, and go to the library, and start reading. You are an ignorant person. And I don't say that to be rude. You simply lack knowledge.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscons...constindex.htm

This article deals with illegal immigrants, but the same cases apply to every immigrant and visitor, legal or not.

You two are some of the biggest retards on this forum.


The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY to non-citizens that are NOT PHYSICALLY here in the US. Non-citizens have LIMITED constitutional rights while PHYSICALLY in the US. Why is it so hard for you two ****tards to understand this?


You two ****tards think that Constitution applies universally to all peoples in anywhere. ****ing idiots, I swear.

[SillieBazzillie]

lmao you think NYT is a credible source?

Of course it's not. Been around for decade after decade with editors, reporters, and fact checkers, but instead you should listen to what some alt right news site spews. To Trumpers this logic makes total sense.

[kel_varnsen]

Because he didn't block refugees. Stop reading fake news breitbart.

Just because it wasn't an explicit ban, doesn't mean he didn't block refugees. Do you know how many Iraqis were let into the US in the first half of 2011?

[dabbmw2002]

You two are some of the biggest retards on this forum.


The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY to non-citizens that are NOT PHYSICALLY here in the US. Non-citizens have LIMITED constitutional rights while PHYSICALLY in the US. Why is it so hard for you two ****tards to understand this?


You two ****tards think that Constitution applies universally to all peoples in anywhere. ****ing idiots, I swear.

I dont know what they are going on about. The mention a case but fail to show a parallel and application. They have yet to demonstrate how a non citizen on foreign soil is protected under the Constitution.

[MojoTheMonkey]

You two are some of the biggest retards on this forum.


The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY to non-citizens that are NOT PHYSICALLY here in the US. Non-citizens have LIMITED constitutional rights while PHYSICALLY in the US. Why is it so hard for you two ****tards to understand this?


You two ****tards think that Constitution applies universally to all peoples in anywhere. ****ing idiots, I swear.

They know. They just redirect to cases involving immigrants already in the US because they don't have an argument.

Of course, the constitution doesn't apply to people outside the US. The United States government can ban all non citizens from entering the US because their favorite band is Nickleback.

Can you imagine during the Cold War, a Russian flying over and being like 'I'm entitled to live here!'. LOL.

[7rmr]

You two are some of the biggest retards on this forum.


The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY to non-citizens that are NOT PHYSICALLY here in the US. Non-citizens have LIMITED constitutional rights while PHYSICALLY in the US. Why is it so hard for you two ****tards to understand this?


You two ****tards think that Constitution applies universally to all peoples in anywhere. ****ing idiots, I swear.

Again, neither of us said that.

You're arguments would be much more impactful if you actually addressed what we were saying

[beowulf10]

A chinese immigrant is not the same as a refugee not even in country you dolt. And the constitution applies if they are caught in the legal system i.e. right to miranda and 5th amendment.

A Chinese immigrant and a refugee are the same with respect that they are both human beings, and it is assumed that all human beings have the same individual rights.

The founding fathers believed this; and when they wrote the U.S. Constitution they intended it to describe what the Government can and cannot do, and everything else which we could possibly imagine happening and which was not described in the Constitution was assumed to be the responsibility of each Individual State, and the right of each individual Citizen.

7rmr has reiterated a very profound point that most Trump supporters are simply ignorant of. In fact, Trump supporters seem to think that anything not listed in the Bill of Rights is something the U.S. Federal Government can do even if it interferes in the lives of American citizens. But, in reality, it's the other way around. Before the U.S. Federal Government can do anything which encroaches on the rights of individuals, it has to ask and be granted the ability.

A Chinese immigrant and a refugee are the same with respect to the fact that are both non U.S. Citizens.

I would encourage you to read the following document. It's a great summary of the law with regard to the rights of non citizens:

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...context=facpub

7rmr's point about whether or not you've been processed being an Administrative issue is true.

[beowulf10]

Can you imagine during the Cold War, a Russian flying over and being like 'I'm entitled to live here!'. LOL.

Look, the whole idea of individuals having inalienable rights and the idea that we make a practical deal with a government, and that a government must do what its citizens say, that's a big part of the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed, and why the U.S. won the cold war.

Nobody wants to live in a totalitarian State where the Government thinks it can do whatever the heck it wants.

[GTS540]

Iranian baby gets to enter U.S. for pro-bono heart surgery following halt to immigration ban

Spoiler!

An Iranian infant in need of lifesaving heart surgery can finally see a doctor in the U.S.

Four-month-old Fatemeh Reshad was scheduled to visit Portland, Ore., for a critical procedure when she was barred from entering the country due to President Trump�s travel ban put last week.

Her family�s anguish ended Friday when they were granted a waiver to enter the U.S., Gov. Cuomo told the Daily News.

Cuomo, smitten by the cherubic tyke and incensed over Trump�s ban, secured legal assistance for her family and said doctors at Mount Sinai have agreed to perform the much-needed procedure for free.

Word of the waiver came just as a federal judge in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order halting Trump�s executive order.

The governor worked with the International Refugee Assistance Project to petition on behalf of the family.

�We will continue to work with the International Refugee Assistance Project to ensure this baby receives the treatment she needs, and fight for those being unfairly shut out of America�s gates by this policy,� Cuomo said.

The law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison agreed to cover the family�s expenses and legal costs, Cuomo said.

Fatemeh and her parents were scheduled to meet with doctors at Oregon Health & Science University this weekend.

The family was set to travel to *****, en route to the U.S., when Trump signed the order barring visitors and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries.

�Everything was OK. They asked for a lot of paperwork. She got the appointment, February 5, in the morning,� Fatemah�s uncle, Sam Taghizadeh, told KPTV. �All the papers, everything was ready, and just in the last minute they canceled everything.�

Taghizadeh has lived in the U.S for 13 years. He resides in Portland with the young girl�s grandparents, who are U.S. citizens.

According to medical records, Fatemeh has structural abnormalities and two holes in her heart.
�Her heart is twisted. Her heart�s working overtime to compensate ... and it�s causing more and more damage to her every day that she doesn�t have the surgery,� attorney Amber Murray, who was assisting the family�s petition for a visa waiver, told the Associated Press.

Lawmakers in Oregon were also fighting for the tiny tot.

Now, the adorable infant will get to see a doctor.

�I am pleased to announce that the world-renowned pediatric cardiac surgical team at Mount Sinai Hospital, who has extensive experience in managing patients with this condition, has generously offered to provide the surgery and medical care at no cost to the family,� Cuomo said.

Earlier, U.S. District Judge James Robart granted a temporary restraining order halting Trump�s order.

Fatemeh�s family could not be reached for comment.

It is not clear if she will be treated in Oregon as originally planned, or if the family will take Mount Sinai doctors up on their offer.

The White House insists the ban on travel for 90 days from seven countries including Iran, as well as other restrictions, is necessary to protect the U.S. from terrorism.

Last weekend, Cuomo blasted the order as un-American and vowed to help detainees and others affected by the ban.

Oregon senator Jeff Merkley also submitted a formal request for a waiver to allow the little girl into the country, according to the Oregonian.

�A little girl�s life is at stake,� he told the newspaper.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2963997