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.
We are a society with laws in place. Here it is, you are welcome.
101(a)(13)(C)(v) to the INA
(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien-
(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,
Bingo!
Here you go:
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.
How many terrorist attacks occur here in the US? I mean, the actual ones, not the ones that Trump pretends aren't being reported.
Okay... so, how many other types of crimes that are dangerous to life and liberty occur here all the time? What percentage of crimes are terror-related?
Why are we focused on something that really doesn't happen very often? Come on... is someone getting killed by a crazy, white guy in South Carolina somehow not as bad as someone being killed by a crazy, brown guy from the Middle East in San Bernardino? Nope.
So, that said...
Who cares?!? The person/persons who got killed are dead no matter who kills them.
Even my liberal self could get behind a travel ban if these countries had terrorists flowing out of them like cheap wine and people in the US were constantly having to duck and cover to avoid being killed by people from the Middle East.
But, this is NOT the case.
The odds of getting murdered in the U.S. by Muslim terrorists is fairly low. Much lower than getting murdered by a homegrown nutcase with an assault rifle. Great deal lower than getting murdered as a result of domestic violence.
"About 4,000 women die each year due to domestic violence."
Every year more women are murdered by their partners than were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Think on that for a moment.
In the greats scheme of things, here is absolutely no way this bugaboo of "terrorist attacks" that Bannon, Trump, and their faithful followers keep flogging makes any sense
"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."
The only reason the courts pretend to have authority, is because it is politically-expedient for the other branches to pretend they have authority.
And the only reason the legislature and the president don't stack the courts with new justices, is because it isn't politically-expedient for them to do that.
All these myths about what the "founders/framers" created, are obnoxious, and not true.
Best post on this entire topic. The courts made up the power of judicial review. Congress can remove the jurisdiction of the lower courts to hear immigration questions at any time. The only debatable question is whether the Supreme Court has the power of stop an order like this. But such power is not listed among its jurisdiction in the Constitution, so I doubt it. It's best to leave the safety of the country and immigration up to the elected President, his advisers, DHS, the military Joint Chiefs, and other people who no what they are doing, not some hack judge.
Let us remember that Judicial Review was not in our Constitution.
"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."
So please people, stop peddling lies.
It is not a lie. Out government does have three branches
1. Executive, (President)
2. Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives)
3. Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts)
It is not a lie. Out government does have three branches
1. Executive, (President)
2. Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives)
3. Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts)
The poster you are responding to has been successfully brainwashed against the judicial branch of government which is the only branch now standing in Trump and Bannon's way.
Quote:
Bannon says he’s a Leninist: that could explain the White House’s new tactics
Trump’s top political adviser says he wants to destroy the state, like the Bolshevik leader, and some of his ideas certainly echo the Russian revolutionary
Two days after Lenin seized power in Russia almost exactly a century ago, he began an assault on the press – and his successors in the USSR did not let up for the next 70 years.
Lenin abolished the existing legal system and started afresh. Within a few weeks his regime closed down the first freely elected parliament in Russia’s history – and the Soviets never allowed another one. It would be wrong to assume that the next step for Trump is the abolition of Congress, or the construction of labour camps. But the unprecedented war by tweet between the administration and the judiciary over the president’s executive order on immigration has real echoes of Bannon’s revolutionary hero
The line of yours that I bolded, "All kids should get an equal education."
This is the moral, economic, and social imperative which was the driving force behind both the striking down of the law in Brown v. The Board of Education, and the later court orders leading to forced busing.
In neither case was this actually a "Constitutional question". And every reasonable person knows it.
The idea that the government must treat all equally is hardly controversial.
Quote:
The court ruled that the same laws which had been on the books for more than a hundred years, and were written by the same people who ratified the 14th amendment, had been unconstitutional since the day they wrote them.
This position is obviously nonsensical. But that wasn't the point.
The court was "doing the right thing", because as you said, "All kids should get an equal education".
As I said, I am not going to argue on the merits of the decision. You won't find many people who will say that some kids deserve a better education than others.
But, if you were to say that "All kids should get an equal education", as a basis for the legitimacy of the court orders that compelled governments to act, then why stop there? Do kids even get an equal education today? Do kids live in equal environments today? Do kids have equal-opportunity today?
Not always which is why Ohio is still fighting this BUT let's also remember, not all things are because of the government. If you want to argue that government should divest itself of any hand in education, do so. We can do that. Since we are not, then the government must treat all equally.
If there is an inner city kid falling behind because his parent is a drug addict, the government is not the reason for that so it's not up to the court to rectify that.
Quote:
If you took such logic and precedent, and applied it universally, the Supreme Court could order governments to do almost anything if it was for the purpose of "promoting equality".
you just do not like they ruled against him-- you can move to China or Russia where maybe a judge is a statue.. This is how America RULES__ accept it
No, you are wrong. America is not meant to be ruled by the judiciary. Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not judges. The judiciary is only supposed to interpret the law, and that is where the 9th Circus over-stepped their bounds. They are the most overturned court in the land, and for good reason. It is not their job to give opinions on foreign policy.
According to the statute, the president is within his right to do what he did, they same way other presidents have issued similar orders. That is the ONLY thing this court was supposed to rule on, not the merits of the order.
That is how America rules. Is not ruled by liberal activist judges, but that is the only thing the liberals have left. It is pure desperation.
How many terrorist attacks occur here in the US? I mean, the actual ones, not the ones that Trump pretends aren't being reported.
Okay... so, how many other types of crimes that are dangerous to life and liberty occur here all the time? What percentage of crimes are terror-related?
Why are we focused on something that really doesn't happen very often? Come on... is someone getting killed by a crazy, white guy in South Carolina somehow not as bad as someone being killed by a crazy, brown guy from the Middle East in San Bernardino? Nope.
So, that said...
Who cares?!? The person/persons who got killed are dead no matter who kills them.
Even my liberal self could get behind a travel ban if these countries had terrorists flowing out of them like cheap wine and people in the US were constantly having to duck and cover to avoid being killed by people from the Middle East.
But, this is NOT the case.
When the last administration had no qualms about going into Syria to overthrow Assad, murdering people in the process while simultaneously supporting fundamentalists, in support of the petro-dollar, what makes you think these same people will have qualms about allowing some of these extremist to murder American people, so they can continue on the path of this destructive foreign policy?
It is not a lie. Out government does have three branches
1. Executive, (President)
2. Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives)
3. Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts)
What does that have to do with Judicial Review?
Judicial Review refers to the courts having "power" over the other branches of government. Judicial Review removes the "independence" of the legislature and the executive, and makes them subservient to the courts.
Anything the president tries to do, the courts could simply declare as unconstitutional.
Who checks the court? Not the president, and not the people. These justices are appointed for life. They answer to no one, while everyone else must answer to them.
That isn't what the founders actually created. It was a takeover that came later, and has only gotten worse with time, as the courts have become increasingly politicized.
If you think the courts "should" have that power, fine. But our Constitution does not give them that power.
It suddenly is clear to me why Obama refused to call out 'terrorists' and correctly identify 'radical Islamists', etc. when speaking about domestic events. In not doing so where it was merited, it seems he set it up so that a court could claim there were no terrorist activities that can be attributed to people on our soil from those 7 countries listed in the EO.
That meant that apparently 60 acts of violence by people from those particular countries could be found in no list of 'terrorist activities' and therefore the 9th court judges could, because of pure and deliberate use of semantics, cunningly set up entirely by the previous administration, claim there was no real danger to the US as a result of staying the EO stop.
Oh the tangled webs he wove. Thanks, Dems. Your guy may make you proud with his ability to be devious and underhanded but you in your support of him may endanger everyone in 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.
