Federal judge in Seattle puts nationwide halt to Trump’s ban (government, permit)

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It says a subject of a foreign state, NOT any such person located in a foreign state.

BIG difference.

What's the difference? You're splitting hairs in an attempt to feel right about something.

A citizen of a foreign state can use the US court system simple.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by Marlow

Lawful permanent residents (aka green card holders) have rights to equal protection, due process, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If a lawful permanent resident goes home on vacation and then is banned from re-entering the country because he comes from a majority Muslim country, he could probably state a claim that all of those rights have been violated.

Trump's EO included lawful permanent residents.

The Contract Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts. Liberty of contract is an enforceable right under the due process clause. If Trump's EO impairs the right of an employer to contract with an employee, it may have violated his due process rights.

Are these rights violated by the EO? I don't know and neither does anyone else at this point. But I'm guessing those are the types of allegations being made.

The EO doesn't affect LPRs. It has been clarified many times.

Even it does, LPRs don't have the constitutional right to enter US. Please cite the law that says they do.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by Domitian

Two questions:

Why would it be fantastic? How does it benefit the United States?

Who gets to revoke a visa?

It's fantastic because we can import unlimited amount of Democrat voters.

Any liberal should have the right to revoke people's visas.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I imagine that you or your recent ancestors were immigrants who came to America from elsewhere. Would you have wanted to be banned from immigrating?

We are a nation of immigrants, built by immigrants, and built for immigrants (often at the expense of the people that were here first).

That is our history.

cool, let's go out of our way and invite Russian white people also. They deserve as much as anyone else to come here if they want.


PS, the nowhere in the constitution is there law saying someone must be let in.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

What's the difference? You're splitting hairs in an attempt to feel right about something.

A citizen of a foreign state can use the US court system simple.

Yes, only if that foreign citizen establishes a physical presence in US.

[Domitian]

Originally Posted by lionking

PS, the nowhere in the constitution is there law saying someone must be let in.

and this is the crux of the argument that so many on the left choose to ignore.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Yes outside the US that's what a foreign state is.

No. As everyone knows, there are foreigners legally present in the US as tourists, on student, work, etc., visas, and as Green Card holders. That statute enables them to use US Federal courts to litigate against US persons/entities, even though they are not US citizens.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by lionking

cool, let's go out of our way and invite Russian white people also. They deserve as much as anyone else to come here if they want.


PS, the nowhere in the constitution is there law saying someone must be let in.

Not if the "the people" in our constitution means "the people of the world."

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Marlow

Lawful permanent residents (aka green card holders) have rights to equal protection, due process, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If a lawful permanent resident goes home on vacation and then is banned from re-entering the country because he comes from a majority Muslim country, he could probably state a claim that all of those rights have been violated.

Not while located outside the US and not yet permitted re-entry.

[Marlow]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

The EO doesn't affect LPRs. It has been clarified many times.

Even it does, LPRs don't have the constitutional right to enter US. Please cite the law that says they do.

It certainly did affect green card holders.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to research the law. As I said suggested before, why don't you read the briefs, look up the cases and statutes cited and try to understand the parties' positions? If you really care about this issue, that would be a better use of your time. I am NOT being snarky--it's a sincere suggestion.