Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An executive order which voids over 100,000 visas, AFTER those visa applicants have already gone through a lengthy and arduous vetting process, as well as violating the rights of hundreds of thousands permanent residents does need justification. How this protects national security, when other Muslim majority nations were not barred but do have a history of being the source of domestic terrorism, is the key question. And yet, barring entry from all Muslim majority nations then makes the ban seem to be focused on Muslims, and our government is unable to pass laws or executive orders, for that matter, that target people for their religion.
I think this particular executive order is simply too problematic as is, and will have to be scrapped, and a more thoughtful executive order will have to be drafted, with the Department of Justice screening it, and the other executive departments affected by the order having the opportunity to study it and come up with the best way to implement it. The seat-of-the-pants-on-fire implementation was a big part of the problem.
The failing here, I believe, is the arguments on this case, or perhaps, like you said earlier, it was too vague. For example, I understand vetting from these countries has been problematic and was testified to in Congress. It was, as noted at the time, an insufficient vetting process because of the lack of background information and/or government from some places (namely those on this list). Thus, I can understand the rationale for canceling the already granted visas. Fair to those people? Perhaps not but it's more about if it's allowed under our Constitution, not fairness. After all, there is no guarantee one can enter a country even after obtaining a visa. As the law is written, the EO did not need to provide justification even though the court suddenly believes that to be true, there is no Constitutional requirement as they are not citizens and have not yet entered the United States. The green card holders being the exception. I still think the court made the incorrect ruling but that's my own armchair analysis. Take it for what it's worth.
That being said, an EO without the green card component and which does, albeit it should be unnecessary, include just one line for justification (originating country unable to assist in vetting) would likely be enough to hold up in any court. Perhaps the better option here is for Trump to write another EO but I would like to see the court challenges continue if for no other reason than to settle the law on who has the power over visa issuance or denial in this country. All law has shown it is the Executive branch; perhaps it would be good to have judicial review to either affirm or strike down this understanding of the law.
The failing here, I believe, is the arguments on this case, or perhaps, like you said earlier, it was too vague. For example, I understand vetting from these countries has been problematic and was testified to in Congress. It was, as noted at the time, an insufficient vetting process because of the lack of background information and/or government from some places (namely those on this list). Thus, I can understand the rationale for canceling the already granted visas. Fair to those people? Perhaps not but it's more about if it's allowed under our Constitution, not fairness. After all, there is no guarantee one can enter a country even after obtaining a visa. As the law is written, the EO did not need to provide justification even though the court suddenly believes that to be true, there is no Constitutional requirement as they are not citizens and have not yet entered the United States. The green card holders being the exception. I still think the court made the incorrect ruling but that's my own armchair analysis. Take it for what it's worth.
That being said, an EO without the green card component and which does, albeit it should be unnecessary, include just one line for justification (originating country unable to assist in vetting) would likely be enough to hold up in any court. Perhaps the better option here is for Trump to write another EO but I would like to see the court challenges continue if for no other reason than to settle the law on who has the power over visa issuance or denial in this country. All law has shown it is the Executive branch; perhaps it would be good to have judicial review to either affirm or strike down this understanding of the law.
The "insufficient" vetting process could take years, and when the visa and accompanying paperwork was issued (in some cases with clock ticking as some paperwork would expire), the people would then undertake the steps to move from one country to another. Selling their homes, many of their belongings, their cars, quitting their jobs, transferring medical records, school records, etc. These people whose visas were revoked suffered actual damages, legal and financial damages. Even though they are not citizens, they are entitled to argue for redress in a court of law.
The "insufficient" vetting process could take years, and when the visa and accompanying paperwork was issued (in some cases with clock ticking as some paperwork would expire), the people would then undertake the steps to move from one country to another. Selling their homes, many of their belongings, their cars, quitting their jobs, transferring medical records, school records, etc. These people whose visas were revoked suffered actual damages, legal and financial damages. Even though they are not citizens, they are entitled to argue for redress in a court of law.
You won't get any sympathy from me, an actual immigrant who has gone through the lengthy process. It took me 5 years to get my green card and I was on the fastest track possible. For others, 10-15 years are the norm.
So what they have to wait for 90 days? Get over with it.
The "insufficient" vetting process could take years, and when the visa and accompanying paperwork was issued (in some cases with clock ticking as some paperwork would expire), the people would then undertake the steps to move from one country to another. Selling their homes, many of their belongings, their cars, quitting their jobs, transferring medical records, school records, etc. These people whose visas were revoked suffered actual damages, legal and financial damages. Even though they are not citizens, they are entitled to argue for redress in a court of law.
I don't know if that's accurate or not. I think that's accurate for green card holders, yes, because that establishes permanent residency and thus protections under our Constitution even if out of country (e.g. ability to return). However, for those with visas who have not yet entered the United States? I don't actually think they are entitled to redress through our court systems. Well, they could make the case (although I do not think they have standing) but their financial damages are predicated on the idea they would have an absolute assurance they could enter the United States upon issuance of a visa. Yet, even when they obtain the visa, the language is excessively clear that the visa if no guarantee of entry. Thus, any damages they have incurred would be mitigated by this and thus, I do not think they can prove the United States should be responsible for any financial damages they incurred due to their inability to get into our country.
It specifically targets countries without being able to justify targeting those countries. The terrorists who have attempted to commit domestic acts of terrorism haven't come from the countries that Trump has identified. Moreover, the ban itself is too vague in its wording, which is what led to green-card holders being barred. That, in itself, would be grounds for striking down the executive order, because permanent residents do have rights in this country, and the executive order violates their rights. While the administration may have tried to step that back by "clarifying" that the executive order didn't apply to permanent residents, they didn't issue an actual amendment, either, and they didn't have Trump sign off on that amendment. So the ban as originally issued is what is being challenged, and the language itself is problematic, which is why the challenges in the courts have been successful.
I had seen that they can prove that there are training camps for radicalizing in those countries. I think that will prove justification.
I heard that the judge that issued the stay had not included a written reason why. So, this is very interesting
regardless.
Read your own post:
Leave the US voluntarily = No legal or Constitutional right to return.
Nope, you have it wrong.
It's about ENTRY, not leaving.
Fleuti doctrine
Quote:
In 1956, Mr. Fleuti, a lawful permanent resident from Sweden, took a four-hour trip to Mexico and was charged with being "excludable" upon his return. In the course of the immigration court proceedings that followed, Mr. Fleuti asserted that, as a lawful permanent resident returning from a brief trip abroad, he should not be subject to the exclusion grounds that governed who was eligible to enter the United States.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court agreed with Mr. Fleuti. That decision, Rosenberg v Fleuti, 374 U.S.449 (1963), gave rise to what became known as the "Fleuti doctrine," under which lawful permanent residents were not regarded as making an "entry" into the United States when returning from a brief, casual and innocent trip abroad. As a result of this doctrine, lawful permanent residents could travel abroad and return to the U.S. without being exposed to enforcement under the exclusion rules then in force, as long as their absences met the Fleuti test of not being "meaningfully interruptive" of LPR status.
"When arriving at a port of entry, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer will review your permanent resident card and any other identity documents you present, such as a passport, foreign national I.D. card or U.S. Driver’s License, and determine *if* you can enter the United States."
Got that? "...determine IF you can enter the United States."
There is no guarantee of re-entry. They are still foreign nationals, not US citizens.
Lol. Do you understand the difference
Between above and a blanket ban? Blanket ban is a Guarantee of no entry. Got it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
