9th Circuit's Decision ****UPDATE*** (statistics, death, how much, guns)
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.
Trump is already looking for a new order that by passes the court ruling. Screw the circus appeals court. Love the deportation of these illegals that the left is crying their eyes out about now.
Are you aware that this entire 56 page thread is about the 9th Circuit Court's decision on the immigration of LEGAL green card holders, permanent residents, and refugees? Try to keep up.
Are you aware that this entire 56 page thread is about the 9th Circuit Court's decision on the immigration of LEGAL green card holders, permanent residents, and refugees? Try to keep up.
None of them are guaranteed entry/re-entry to the US. Sorry, they're just not. I've listed the reasons why that is true, many times.
The logic is faulty. It assumes aliens located outside the US have Constitutional rights, including due process. They simply don't. Why else do you think we have to have extradition treaties with foreign countries?
You may not believe that it's logical. But the 9th Circuit opinion is based in part on two Supreme Court Cases, Zadvydas v. Davis and Landon v. Plasencia, which discuss the rights of non-citizens in relation to the U.S. Constitution. Whether you like it or not, those cases state the law of the land and they say that non-citizens do have some rights when it comes to U.S. immigration policy.
You are wrong about this. 99% of the cases resolved by the 9th Circuit are not overturned. In 99% of proceedings before it, the 9th Circuit is the highest court to analyze the case.
Yes.
That one, that one case, the most important case in the United States of America - The Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration vs The State of California -
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled perfectly, without question, "the State of California wins, the IRS and SSA lose".
It was about the disputed contract between the two - that clause, that both sides signed and agreed to, that said in clear and plain language, "Either party can cancel this contract by giving the other party a two-year written notice to cancel the contract."
The USSC overruled, quickly, telling California that when it entered into that contract with the IRS and the SSA, the contract was actually a contract between the State of California and the United States Congress, and that the United States Congress was a body that deals with change, and therefore, by the contract between the "IRS and the SSA" and the State of California was changed . . . and that, um, we believe that they can, um, do that, an stuff.
"The states and the numerous business that filed amicus briefs argued that the executive order hurt businesses and citizens of this nation."
I'm simply not seeing that restriction in the law. Can you point out where it is?
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
I think this might be the 3rd time I've posted this. Here is the restriction
Among a lot of other things it says, " No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, except as specifically provided in section 101(a) (27), section 201(b), ..."
The argument that the States and business were harmed are to give those States and business standing to file the suit. This isn't part of the immigration statute.
You may not believe that it's logical. But the 9th Circuit opinion is based in part on two Supreme Court Cases, Zadvydas v. Davis and Landon v. Plasencia, which discuss the rights of non-citizens in relation to the U.S. Constitution.
I'm not seeing how an alien located outside the US can get around having to comply with any proclamations issued under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Among a lot of other things it says, " No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, except as specifically provided in section 101(a) (27), section 201(b), ..."
The argument that the States and business were harmed are to give those States and business standing to file the suit. This isn't part of the immigration statute.
I'm not buying it. Carter was able to restrict by country in 1979. Trump is similarly restricting by country.
They have very limited Constitutional rights, and are referred to as Common Law.
That is false. What is clear is that immigrants have Due Process and 1st Amendment rights. Due Process rights clearly apply to permanent residents & certain other visa holders even when they have left the United States to travel to foreign countries and are attempting to return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Truthfully, no.
As USCIS clearly states about visas:
"While having a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States, it does indicate a consular officer at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad has determined you are eligible to seek entry for that specific purpose."
Green Card holders are warned that they might not be able to re-enter the US if they choose to travel abroad. They're still aliens who travel on their foreign passport. They can be turned away at Immigration pursuant to Rosenberg v. Fleuti, as noted in Plasencia v. Sureck:
"The Court listed several factors which are relevant to whether a given departure is a meaningful interruption, including the length of the absence, the purpose of the trip, and whether the alien had to obtain special travel documents. The Court also said that "if the purpose of leaving the country is to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy reflected in our immigration laws, it would appear that the interruption of residence thereby occurring would properly be regarded as meaningful."
And as has already been noted, under Immigration Law, POTUS does have the authority to deny entry to aliens. Green Card holders are aliens. They are not US citizens.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Customs & Immigration must comply with the requirements of Due Process. Congress cannot bypass Due Process. The EO is nothing like the cases you attempt to cite. It is a broad, blanketed exclusion of even visa holders and lawful permanent residents. Because it is (at the very least) very poorly drafted, the courts put it on hold so that the challenge against it can be resolved.
While not the subject of the 9th Cir. ruling, note that section 1182 only applies when entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. At a minimum, the President's designation would be subject to rational basis review. The review would be more strict if the "class of aliens" were delineated by religion, gender, race, or other protected category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Except for the fact that aliens located outside the US have no Constitutional rights. They just don't.
The EO affects US resident aliens, who clearly have constitutional rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
None of them are guaranteed entry/re-entry to the US. Sorry, they're just not. I've listed the reasons why that is true, many times.
You don't understand what you listed--or how the Constitution interacts with it.
I'm not seeing how an alien located outside the US can get around having to comply with any proclamations issued under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
There just are no grounds.
Did you read the cases? They set forth the grounds you're looking for.
So, the 9th, just gave every person in the world, the RIGHT to come to the USA.
150% wrong.Trumps ban is what is blocked,all the same rules apply to come in and go out of this country.
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.
