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.
You're mixing issues, I was providing an example to somebody of how foreign citizens actually can be subjected to our jurisdiction without physical presence.
Citizens. Exactly. So I asked you which citizen is being sued.
Citizens. Exactly. So I asked you which citizen is being sued.
Your premise is faulty. Permanent residents have rights.
The Court in Rosenberg v. Fleuti (Sup.Ct.1963) departed from this rigid application, recognizing that a person does not make an "entry" upon his return to the United States where he had no intent to leave, or did not in fact leave the country voluntarily. Hence, permanent residents would not be subject to the conditions of an entry after making a brief, innocent, and casual trip outside the United States.
In its new definition of "admission," the IIRIRA incorporated and expanded upon the Fleuti doctrine. Now, permanent residents will not be regarded as seeking admission (and thus are not subject to the grounds of inadmissibility) unless they (1) have abandoned or relinquished their permanent resident status, (2) have been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days, (3) have engaged in illegal activity after their departure from the U.S., (4) have departed from the U.S. while in removal or extradition proceedings, (5) have committed a criminal or related offense identified in section 212(a)(2) (including "crimes of moral turpitude", drug trafficking, or prostitution), or (6) are attempting to enter at a place other than a designated port of entry or have not been admitted to the U.S. after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. INA § 101(a)(13)(C).
There is also another law - USC 1152(1)(A), was added in 1965. It provides that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”
An article in the Atlantic points out that the issue might hinge on whether the judges think that the law passed in 1965 modifies the 1952 law, which it would seem to, or whether they feel that the 1952 law modifies the 1965 law but it's hard to see how an earlier law could modify a later law in my opinion - but I'm not a legal scholar. Here is the article that discusses this
The references added to 8 USC 1182 shows that it has been modified/amended/enhanced/built on many times since 1952, the latest by Public Law 113-4, Title VIII, Paragraph 804 on 7 MAR 2013.
In order to find the ban (or 8 USC 1182 (f)) Unconstitutional, the courts will have to specify exactly what Clause, Section, and Paragraph of the Constitution has been violated. I will be quite interested in reading their conclusions.
The references added to 8 USC 1182 shows that it has been modified/amended/enhanced/built on many times since 1952, the latest by Public Law 113-4, Title VIII, Paragraph 804 on 7 MAR 2013.
In order to find the ban (or 8 USC 1182 (f)) Unconstitutional, the courts will have to specify exactly what Clause, Section, and Paragraph of the Constitution has been violated. I will be quite interested in reading their conclusions.
As would I because I just can't see it. I know I'm not Constitutional expert but it's hard to find any Constitutional justification for striking down this EO. IF the EO targeted Muslims specifically, that would be one thing and if it targeted all Muslim majority countries, that too would be one thing. But it does neither of those.
I was watching this issue repeatedly discussed this am on various news shows...More than one person mentioned that Trump's order will pass, because Washington and Minnesota are not representative of the "individual" that has to prove that they were harmed.
There is also great concern that this is supposedly a liberal judge in a liberal district. There are liberals who will fight Pres. Trump for the next 4 years, no matter the issue.
I personally think that is the only reason President Trump's E.O. on immigration was challenged.
I am no expert...But, it does surprise me that a Judge from any district can usurp the President's orders.
Gonna be fascinating to watch though. And I hope the vetting is very through, because this feels like an opportune time for those taking advantage of our lenient immigration practices.
I was watching this issue repeatedly discussed this am on various news shows...More than one person mentioned that Trump's order will pass, because Washington and Minnesota are not representative of the "individual" that has to prove that they were harmed.
There is also great concern that this is supposedly a liberal judge in a liberal district.
I am no expert...But, it does surprise me that a Judge from any district can usurp the President's orders.
Gonna be fascinating to watch though. And I hope the vetting is very through, because this feel like an opportune time for those taking advantage of our lenient immigration practices.
On the bolded, I wouldn't call it usurp. The Federal judicial system is a part of the checks and balances built into the system of government our Founding Fathers established when writing the Constitution. Of course, when the judicial doesn't follow the Constitution and instead bases decisions based on politics or some other reason, this is where people talk about judicial activism or legislating from the bench. It's an imperfect system, our system of government, but it's still far superior to most in my opinion.
As would I because I just can't see it. I know I'm not Constitutional expert but it's hard to find any Constitutional justification for striking down this EO. IF the EO targeted Muslims specifically, that would be one thing and if it targeted all Muslim majority countries, that too would be one thing. But it does neither of those.
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.
This is what happens when you rush and put out something illegal and unconstitutional. Victory! Long live our courts in the fight against tyranny.
I was with a sheeple friend earlier today and they said "I WAS JUST READING DONALD TRUMPS TWITTER PAGE AND HE CANT BELIEVE THEY DID THIS..... Let it be on thier dime if anything happens"
I have talked to some that think then judge AND trump are in on it and donny LET HIM DO THIS as a pre-text to some psyop!! (Like they did on 9/11 to get sheeple support for that stupid iraq war) They think something bad it gonna happen now to make more support him.....
Who knows...... I dont think @ this point its safe to rule anything out!
As would I because I just can't see it. I know I'm not Constitutional expert but it's hard to find any Constitutional justification for striking down this EO. IF the EO targeted Muslims specifically, that would be one thing and if it targeted all Muslim majority countries, that too would be one thing. But it does neither of those.
Actually the judges can take the public statements that Trump has made into consideration.
Trump said he would ban muslims.
Ergo, the judges can accept that is the intent of the EO.
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.
