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.
Foreigners can, however, establish jurisdiction despite a lack of physical presence. One way is contacts/ties to a location in the US and another is diversity of citizenship when a case is valued over 75k.
There are ways for foreigners to use our court system.
If they've not been permitted entry/re-entry to the US, they are not domiciled in the US. They're domiciled elsewhere: the foreign country that has issued their current passport.
Obama never had a 'ban'. If you are talking about HR158, that bill was a Republican sponsored bill, it was made part of the appropriations bill, so was a 'must pass', in other words for Obama to sign the appropriations bill HR158 was passed. And it was not a ban, HR158 simply removed four countries (three were added later) from the Visa Waiver program. Residents of those countries could still come to the US but they needed to obtain a Visa. It's easy to find this information, if you can't I will provide source information.
Or, if you are talking about Obama's 2011 action pausing the processing of Iraqi refugees for 6 months, that can't be called a ban either because it did not impact people living in Iraq, they were still able to enter the US with a visa
None of them has the constitutional right to enter US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
If the above listed persons are in the US, how are their Constitutional rights being violated? We're talking about foreign citizens abroad who have not yet been permitted entry/re-entry to the US. As such, they have no Constitutional rights.
Like I said above, I haven't read the briefs. They are public record, so I suggest you find them and read them. I also understand that many groups are expecting to file amicus briefs. They will contain all the arguments for why people believe EO violates the Constitution.
I'm not making any prediction about the outcome of the EO. All I'm saying is that anyone who believes the statute violates the Constitution and has standing to sue has the right to do so. And the fact that the judge issued a TRO doesn't mean he's biased, or an idiot, or a so-called judge. The judiciary is a co-equal partner in governing this country and its members are sworn to uphold the Constitution, just like Trump is.
If they've not been permitted entry/re-entry to the US, they are not domiciled in the US. They're domiciled elsewhere: the foreign country that has issued their current passport.
Right did you read the statute?
citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
Like I said above, I haven't read the briefs. They are public record, so I suggest you find them and read them. I also understand that many groups are expecting to file amicus briefs. They will contain all the arguments for why people believe EO violates the Constitution.
I'm not making any prediction about the outcome of the EO. All I'm saying is that anyone who believes the statute violates the Constitution and has standing to sue has the right to do so. And the fact that the judge issued a TRO doesn't mean he's biased, or an idiot, or a so-called judge. The judiciary is a co-equal partner in governing this country and its members are sworn to uphold the Constitution, just like Trump is.
Could you at least cite one constitutional right being violated please?
citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
When they're located outside the US, the law doesn't apply to them. Just like my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to me, a US citizen, in a foreign country while I am located in a foreign country which prohibits such.
Located outside the US? The law doesn't apply to them. Just like my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to me, a US citizen, while I am located in a foreign country which prohibits such.
Yes outside the US that's what a foreign state is.
If a foreigner wants to use our court system they can.
It's just an example, I'd be curious to see what the briefs to the 9th cir look like.
Could you at least cite one constitutional right being violated please?
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.
Or it could mean everybody issued with a visa would have an constitutional right to enter US.
That would be fantastic!
Two questions:
Why would it be fantastic? How does it benefit the United States?
Who gets to revoke a visa?
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.
