Immigration Ban

#902
#902
hog88 said:
That does seem to be a somewhat unusual argument. How can a person who is not a citizen of the US be a citizen of a state? Especially those that have not even arrived here yet.
Click to expand...

Yep.

How about that...
 
#903
#903
Grand Vol said:
Yep.

How about that...
Click to expand...

This is always tough line to walk when you are standing before judges telling them that they have no authority to even hear argument. I've done it several times, but it is a nerve wracking argument to make because you worry about the judge ruling against you and then holding it against your client.
 
#904
#904
ClearwaterVol said:
This is always tough line to walk when you are standing before judges telling them that they have no authority to even hear argument. I've done it several times, but it is a nerve wracking argument to make because you worry about the judge ruling against you and then holding it against your client.
Click to expand...

Off topic but do you believe judges, especially federal judges have to much power and let that power go to their heads?
 
#905
#905
ClearwaterVol said:
This is always tough line to walk when you are standing before judges telling them that they have no authority to even hear argument. I've done it several times, but it is a nerve wracking argument to make because you worry about the judge ruling against you and then holding it against your client.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to figure out what Hog mentioned. How can a State claim citizenship over a person who hasn't even immigrated into the US? And furthermore, how can they claim jurisdiction when the person hasn't even picked out the place they are going to live?

This is nothing more than a partisan stunt by the judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#906
#906
hog88 said:
Off topic but do you believe judges, especially federal judges have to much power and let that power go to their heads?
Click to expand...

For the most part, I would answer no. The vast majority of judges do their very best to get things right. Some have a better temperament than others, but all bring a certain set of values and predispositions to the bench and this is impossible to eliminate.

I'm just trying to figure out what Hog mentioned. How can a State claim citizenship over a person who hasn't even immigrated into the US? And furthermore, how can they claim jurisdiction when the person hasn't even picked out the place they are going to live?

This is nothing more than a partisan stunt by the judge.
Click to expand...

They aren't claiming citizenship over someone that hasn't immigrated. The argument is that the ban affects everyone because it prevents students from the seven countries to remain here in college and bars entry to immigrants already granted a visa and on their way to the state. My personal opinion, is that those individuals have standing, but the state doesn't have standing to assert claims for non-citizens and the state's claims that this affects all of its citizens is a general and amorphous harm that, to my mind, is not significant enough to confer standing on the state.

Now, if the two classes of people I mentioned above attack the law, they should have standing and can probably establish that the order is unconstitutional as applied to them. Citizenship is not and never has been a basis for the blanket denial of rights found in the constitution.

I don't believe this is a partisan stunt by this judge. He is a Bush II appointee. He simply seems to be of the opinion, and I agree, that there is no way to implement an unconstitutional law. However, the lack of standing should have prevented him from reaching that decision.
 
Last edited:
#907
#907
ClearwaterVol said:
For the most part, I would answer no. The vast majority of judges do their very best to get things right. Some have a better temperament than others, but all bring a certain set of values and predispositions to the bench and this is impossible to eliminate.



They aren't claiming citizenship over someone that hasn't immigrated. The argument is that the ban affects everyone because it prevents students from the seven countries to remain here in college and bars entry to immigrants already granted a visa and on their way to the state. My personal opinion, is that those individuals have standing, but the state doesn't have standing to assert claims for non-citizens and the state's claims that this affects all of its citizens is a general and amorphous harm that, to my mind, is not significant enough to confer standing on the state.

Now, if the two classes of people I mentioned above attack the law, they should have standing and can probably establish that the order is unconstitutional as applied to them. Citizenship is not and never has been a basis for the blanket denial of rights found in the constitution.

I don't believe this is a partisan stunt by this judge. He is a Bush II appointee. He simply seems to be of the opinion, and I agree, that there is no way to implement an unconstitutional law. However, the lack of standing should have prevented him from reaching that decision.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion on the EO.

I have only had 1 in court interaction with a federal judge and this guy acted as if he was God himself.
 
#908
#908
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't believe this is a partisan stunt by this judge. He is a Bush II appointee. He simply seems to be of the opinion, and I agree, that there is no way to implement an unconstitutional law. However, the lack of standing should have prevented him from reaching that decision.
Click to expand...

Exactly how is it Unconstitutional to put a temporary hold while vetting procedures are reviewed and revised?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#909
#909
Grand Vol said:
Exactly how is it Unconstitutional to put a temporary hold while vetting procedures are reviewed and revised?
Click to expand...

The EO did not carve out exceptions for those already having immigrated here and those already granted visas and in the process of travelling here. Both classes have certain rights and are afforded protections under the constitution before said protections can be removed.
 
#910
#910
ClearwaterVol said:
For the most part, I would answer no. The vast majority of judges do their very best to get things right. Some have a better temperament than others, but all bring a certain set of values and predispositions to the bench and this is impossible to eliminate.



They aren't claiming citizenship over someone that hasn't immigrated. The argument is that the ban affects everyone because it prevents students from the seven countries to remain here in college and bars entry to immigrants already granted a visa and on their way to the state. My personal opinion, is that those individuals have standing, but the state doesn't have standing to assert claims for non-citizens and the state's claims that this affects all of its citizens is a general and amorphous harm that, to my mind, is not significant enough to confer standing on the state.

Now, if the two classes of people I mentioned above attack the law, they should have standing and can probably establish that the order is unconstitutional as applied to them. Citizenship is not and never has been a basis for the blanket denial of rights found in the constitution.

I don't believe this is a partisan stunt by this judge. He is a Bush II appointee. He simply seems to be of the opinion, and I agree, that there is no way to implement an unconstitutional law. However, the lack of standing should have prevented him from reaching that decision.
Click to expand...

The boldened groups can (and should) be pushed to the front of the vetting process. I would think, given their status, that they would also be the easiest to vet anyway.

I have no idea how many people actually make up those groups but I think something could be drawn up where there is X amount of time (much shorter) for these people to be cleared (or not) and the onus can be put on the government to accomplish this task in the allotted time or those people are assumed vetted.
 
#911
#911
hndog609 said:
The boldened groups can (and should) be pushed to the front of the vetting process. I would think, given their status, that they would also be the easiest to vet anyway.

I have no idea how many people actually make up those groups but I think something could be drawn up where there is X amount of time (much shorter) for these people to be cleared (or not) and the onus can be put on the government to accomplish this task in the allotted time or those people are assumed vetted.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree in a general sense. However, an unconstitutional law cannot be made constitutional by it's application. What needs to be done is to simply repeal the EO and then replace it with a redrafted EO that addresses the constitutional infirmities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#912
#912
ClearwaterVol said:
The EO did not carve out exceptions for those already having immigrated here and those already granted visas and in the process of travelling here. Both classes have certain rights and are afforded protections under the constitution before said protections can be removed.
Click to expand...

For those already here I can see where they might have a leg to stand on if they were being threatened with expulsion and their visas were still valid. Those with visas who had not arrived yet I just can't see how they have a case. A visa is nothing more than permission to enter the country under prescribed conditions, with them not being citizens or legal residents I would say that permission could be revoked at anytime.
 
#913
#913
hog88 said:
For those already here I can see where they might have a leg to stand on if they were being threatened with expulsion and their visas were still valid. Those with visas who had not arrived yet I just can't see how they have a case. A visa is nothing more than permission to enter the country under prescribed conditions, with them not being citizens or legal residents I would say that permission could be revoked at anytime.
Click to expand...

The very granting of the permission to enter as you call it comes with certain protections. One being that it will not be revoked without due process and it will not be revoked arbitrarily.
 
#914
#914
ClearwaterVol said:
I would tend to agree in a general sense. However, an unconstitutional law cannot be made constitutional by it's application. What needs to be done is to simply repeal the EO and then replace it with a redrafted EO that addresses the constitutional infirmities.
Click to expand...

Could the seemingly obvious answer simply be that people of those specific groups are exempt from this ban and undergo a separate vetting process?
 
#915
#915
hndog609 said:
Could the seemingly obvious answer simply be that people of those specific groups are exempt from this ban and undergo a separate vetting process?
Click to expand...

I would think that they can't go through any more vetting process. They have already been granted the visas. I think the smart move would be to do what Clear payed out earlier. Write a new EO carving out those groups as exceptions and move forward.
 
#916
#916
hndog609 said:
Could the seemingly obvious answer simply be that people of those specific groups are exempt from this ban and undergo a separate vetting process?
Click to expand...

I would think that they have already gone though a vetting process in order to be granted the visa. Therefore, I would think that the people in the two categories that we are discussing could either be exempted completely or they could be made subject to further review, but such review would have to be done with them remaining in country or done while still allowing them to enter.

Again, with many things Trump, it isn't that the sentiment is wrong or misguided. It is just that the implementation is not well thought out because of his desire to make as much change as he can in his first 100 days. It is a lofty goal he's set and I admire the man for that, but I have found that with most things that are significant it is best to examine all angles, create a draft and then set it aside and work on something else and return to it after a day or two. I invariably see things that I missed on the first go round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#917
#917
Ismt it cool how clearwater actually knows what he is talking about? I dont think that LG is a real lawyer. He certainly isnt able to answer questions and know his stuff like clear does. Maybe LG is a paralegal...or just that floriduh edumacation is faaaaaarrrr interior to clears UT ed. What you guys think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#918
#918
ClearwaterVol said:
I would think that they have already gone though a vetting process in order to be granted the visa. Therefore, I would think that the people in the two categories that we are discussing could either be exempted completely or they could be made subject to further review, but such review would have to be done with them remaining in country or done while still allowing them to enter.
Click to expand...

This is something along the lines I had alluded to earlier and seems, to my mind anyway, a very simple tweak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#919
#919
ClearwaterVol said:
The EO did not carve out exceptions for those already having immigrated here and those already granted visas and in the process of travelling here. Both classes have certain rights and are afforded protections under the constitution before said protections can be removed.
Click to expand...

However, I do believe it needed to be broad reaching in the beginning or else we would have had the "refugees" Australia didn't want coming here. Just one particular case.

I don't disagree with your point the criteria might have needed to have been narrowed. But I also believe the brakes needed to be slammed before anything else could happen. Especially with deals made behind closed doors without the advisement of the appropriate Congressional oversight.
 
#920
#920
Grand Vol said:
However, I do believe it needed to be broad reaching in the beginning or else we would have had the "refugees" Australia didn't want coming here. Just one particular case.

I don't disagree with your point the criteria might have needed to have been narrowed. But I also believe the brakes needed to be slammed before anything else could happen. Especially with deals made behind closed doors without the advisement of the appropriate Congressional oversight.
Click to expand...

As the Australia deal wasn't public or if it was I have never seen it, I don't know if any of those people were granted visas, but once they are the problem is one of constitutionality. Before they are granted a visa we can change the rules and they have no ability to challenge the law.

Just as Trump has the authority to set some parameters on immigration, so did Obama. I have not seen anything saying that the vetting process was waived for anyone, so I don't think that congressional oversight is necessary.
 
#921
#921
ClearwaterVol said:
As the Australia deal wasn't public or if it was I have never seen it, I don't know if any of those people were granted visas, but once they are the problem is one of constitutionality. Before they are granted a visa we can change the rules and they have no ability to challenge the law.

Just as Trump has the authority to set some parameters on immigration, so did Obama. I have not seen anything saying that the vetting process was waived for anyone, so I don't think that congressional oversight is necessary.
Click to expand...

I don't know about visas, but they were going to be brought here from my understanding. But the point still stands that Australia didn't want them and we were going to get stuck with them in a shady back channel deal.

But the whole point of the EO was to ensure the vetting process was sound and would work. Nothing wrong with that, but the scope of the EO was what made it troublesome.
 
#922
#922
I found this interesting. How the enemy sees the ban.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7142.jpg
    IMG_7142.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 3
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top