The Travel Ban

[ProdigalHorn]

Few things are more rewarding than seeing judicial tyrants who don't give a crap about the written law getting slapped down and humiliated.

The problem is, he's not humiliated by it. He likely sees himself as a social justice warrior who's going to resist at every turn, and even if he knows it will get slapped down, he sees it as buying time for immigrants and forcing the feds to spend more and more money and time. It's a combination of blind idealism and pettiness.

 

[Joe Fan]

Wont stand. He is directly contradicting SCOTUS. And he knows it

SCOTUS has given Hawaii, et al., until Tuesday to respond to the government’s motion on the reinstated travel ban.

Jeff Sessions --

“Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal Executive Branch related to our national security. By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for that of the Executive branch, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the Executive Branch and the directive of the Supreme Court.” [I would have added here, "and the will of the American people.']

“The district court has issued decisions that are entrusted to the Executive Branch, undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers. The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.”​

Related -- Back in March, just before Trump's EO issued, DHS said a full third of the 1,000 domestic terrorism cases currently being investigated by the FBI involve those admitted to the US as refugees. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/0...-terror-investigations-u-s-officials-say.html

 

[Joe Fan]

SCOTUS has given Hawaii, et al., until Tuesday to respond to the government’s motion on the reinstated travel ban.....

Some followup on this^

As you will recall, in June the SCOTUS reinstated President Trump’s travel ban until oral arguments were heard in October. The ruling exempted a large swath of refugees and travelers with a “bona fide relationship” to a person or an entity in the US. But they did not define those relationships, only saying they could include a close relative, a job offer or admission to a college or university.

The Hawaii AG again went on the attack again, causing DOJ to go back to the SCOTUS with a "Motion to Clarify and Application for Stay." But the Court declined to "clarify" it earlier order. In response, the same Hawaii District Court Judge felt free to expand the "relationship" definition to include just about everyone under the sun.

But SCOTUS has now put that expanded definition on hold until the 9th Circuit gets another crack at it. The Court is clearly giving the 9th Circuit every chance to heal itself. Meanwhile, it's another legal win for Trump on this issue, if only a temporary one.

 

[Joe Fan]

I admit I really would like to have been at the planing meetings with Trump on this legal issue. Specifically what I would like to know was whether anyone argued forcefully for simply telling State to ignore the Hawaii ruling, and order it go ahead and enforce Trump's EO. Then issue a press release saying the Hawaii judge had overstepped his Constitutional authority and jurisdiction and, as a consequence, his order was illegal and unenforceable. And that the Executive Branch is not subject to illegal orders so obviously bourne of sour grapes politics. Something like that.

It would create a "constitutional crisis" but the courts would be powerless to do much about it, other than issue contempt rulings.

 

[Brad Austin]

US Urges All Nationals In North Korea To "Depart Immediately", Bans Tourists From Visiting

Where's the left on this ban? Where are the protests? Where are the lawsuits?

Surely this infringes on the travel rights of U.S. citizens if the travel ban infringes on rights of refugees with extended family members seeking entry.

There will be no challenges to this. Why? Because someone who did this recently died and it'd be a PR nightmare.

But more importantly, fighting for travel rights TO another country provides absolutely no political benefit to the left.

Just more proof none of their immigration bs is about protecting rights, it's all a long game to change political demographics.

 

[Seattle Husker]

US Urges All Nationals In North Korea To "Depart Immediately", Bans Tourists From Visiting

Where's the left on this ban? Where are the protests? Where are the lawsuits?

Surely this infringes on the travel rights of U.S. citizens if the travel ban infringes on rights of refugees with extended family members seeking entry.

There will be no challenges to this. Why? Because someone who did this recently died and it'd be a PR nightmare.

But more importantly, fighting for travel rights TO another country provides absolutely no political benefit to the left.

Just more proof none of their immigration bs is about protecting rights, it's all a long game to change political demographics.

 

[Clean]

It would create a "constitutional crisis" but the courts would be powerless to do much about it, other than issue contempt rulings.

How many Congressional Contempt rulings did Holder ignore with impunity as AG?

Constitutional crisis may be the end result of the current crop of activist judges making their own laws instead of following the Constitution. All ready one branch of government, Congress, is marginalized. The Judiciary may be next. Presidents will decide to accept or ignore a Court ruling. We may end up with a God King.

 

[Joe Fan]

... We may end up with a God King.

Which might be better than the current path

 

[Brad Austin]

God King Trump with Don Jr. next in line. I like it. King Don Un and King Don Jun

 

[iatrogenic]

 

[Joe Fan]

....But SCOTUS has now put that expanded definition on hold until the 9th Circuit gets another crack at it. The Court is clearly giving the 9th Circuit every chance to heal itself. Meanwhile, it's another legal win for Trump on this issue, if only a temporary one.

 

[Clean]

I see the same Hawaiian Judge who put temp injunctions on the last two travel bans has issued a third injunction against the latest one.

I know his last one was overturned. I'm not a lawyer. How can he keep issuing temp injunctions on the same grounds after he's been over ruled by higher courts at least once and maybe twice?

 

[mb227]

I see the same Hawaiian Judge who put temp injunctions on the last two travel bans has issued a third injunction against the latest one.

I know his last one was overturned. I'm not a lawyer. How can he keep issuing temp injunctions on the same grounds after he's been over ruled by higher courts at least once and maybe twice?

Sadly, this is what lifetime appointments results in for the public...

 

[Mr. Deez]

I see the same Hawaiian Judge who put temp injunctions on the last two travel bans has issued a third injunction against the latest one.

I know his last one was overturned. I'm not a lawyer. How can he keep issuing temp injunctions on the same grounds after he's been over ruled by higher courts at least once and maybe twice?

Here's an explanation of it. It's from a liberal source, so it has the smug liberal tone you'd expect, but its analysis is basically correct.

In addition, I read the ruling, and as a practical matter, it makes a ban on travel on the basis of national origin impossible in any circumstance. That is almost sure to get stuck down at some point.

As for why judges will keep issuing rulings like Derrick Watson's, if a judge doesn't mind getting slapped down in appeal, he can do what he wants. They public's remedy is to impeach the judge. Since that's not going to happen, Watson has little reason not to act like a dictator to whom the rules don't apply.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I know his last one was overturned. I'm not a lawyer. How can he keep issuing temp injunctions on the same grounds after he's been over ruled by higher courts at least once and maybe twice?

Umm, that’s not quite accurate. The Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Watson’s injunction. SCOTUS did enjoin a small part of it, but left the guts of the injunction in place pending appeal. SCOTUS never ruled on the merits.

I do think (and hope) that Watson will get overruled in the latest case. But he was not overruled previously, at least not on the main portions of his rulings.

Here's an explanation of it. It's from a liberal source, so it has the smug liberal tone you'd expect, but its analysis is basically correct.

I rolled my eyes when I saw that the article was from Vox. But then I read it and was shocked to find it was cogent and factually accurate. I didn’t even detect all that much liberal smugness. It read to me like a liberal conceding that Judge Watson went too far this time.

In addition, I read the ruling, and as a practical matter, it makes a ban on travel on the basis of national origin impossible in any circumstance. That is almost sure to get stuck down at some point.

Agreed. Watson’s latest ruling is infirm in ways that go way beyond the arguable flaws his previous rulings.

As for why judges will keep issuing rulings like Derrick Watson's, if a judge doesn't mind getting slapped down in appeal, he can do what he wants. They public's remedy is to impeach the judge. Since that's not going to happen, Watson has little reason not to act like a dictator to whom the rules don't apply.

I don’t think Watson did anything that comes anywhere near “dictatorial”. His ruling is at least arguably consistent with the higher courts’ previous rulings in this case. I don’t buy his arguments, and he is being annoyingly persistent, but he isn’t flagrantly ignoring binding authority.

If he gets slapped down in this case, and then does the same thing again, I’ll feel differently.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I rolled my eyes when I saw that the article was from Vox. But then I read it and was shocked to find it was cogent and factually accurate.

I'm not a Vox-hater. It puts out plenty of nonsense and certainly has a liberal bend, but it has a significant amount of good content as well. I also like Ezra Klein's podcast. He's an excellent interviewer, especially of conservative guests.

I don’t think Watson did anything that comes anywhere near “dictatorial”. His ruling is at least arguably consistent with the higher courts’ previous rulings in this case. I don’t buy his arguments, and he is being annoyingly persistent, but he isn’t flagrantly ignoring binding authority.

He's not ignoring binding authority because until this case, nobody had questioned the President's right to restrict immigration on the basis of national origin when national security is claimed as the reason. Of course the court doesn't say, "I'm going to do what I want." It couches its position in legal rhetoric. However, it's on its own course, and it's making this up as it goes along. That's why the only case it can cite to the 9th Circuit decision in the previous EO spat.

 

[Brad Austin]

Good chance DT just received a current, real life example/tragedy to support his travel ban.

Eight Dead After Truck Driver Runs Down Pedestrians in NYC

29-year old Muslim man...born in '88, came to U.S. in 2010. Killed 8, injured dozen or more. Be interesting to see where this terrorist came here from.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Be interesting to see where this terrorist came here from.

From what I'm reading, he came from Uzbekistan.

 

[Clean]

I heard he was allowed entry to the U.S. by The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program makes up to 50,000 immigrant visas available annually, drawn from random selection among all entries to individuals who are from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

Sort of like the immigration version of Russian roulette. Let's see how many terrorists we let in.

Trump proposed stopping this program in his immigration reform proposal last month, which was, in the words of John McCain, a "non-starter".

 

[I35]

Trump proposed stopping this program in his immigration reform proposal last month, which was, in the words of John McCain, a "non-starter".

This is so damn frustrating. When is enough ENOUGH!!!!! John McCain makes decisions base on how he can screw Trump. These never Trumpers are showing their ignorance over and over. All we want is for them to do their job. Do what you were sent there to do. I’ve given up on the Liberals. They are a drag on our great country and pretty much every thing they are for makes zero sense and for the most part, harmful to our country.

Let’s just keep letting them f#ck our citizens safety. Oh and they act like it’s not as bad because when it’s a lone wolf. Most of these lone wolves are people you are allowing in our country.

Stop the Diversity Visa Program NOW!

 

[bystander]

I read the Vox article. I think the idea that we establish bans on the basis of a national security threat and/or confirming an established relationship with a country that allows us to vet properly is absolutely Constitutional. The argument that it is a Muslim ban in sheeps closing on the basis of his campaign comments should not be considered at all. EVERY candidate exaggerates for effect during a campaign AND WE ALL KNOW IT. Now we're going to take those words and pretend it has legal effect over a document written in a manner that does not reflect campaign rhetoric?

 

[theiioftx]

Thanks Chuck Schumer.

 

[Clean]

Thanks Chuck Schumer.

According to Rush, Ted Kennedy was real driving force behind this. Supposedly, Kennedy wanted to get more Irish into the country because they were under represented. Kennedy was also behind The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 which has caused the mess that we're in today.

 

[Clean]

The NYC terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, brought in 23 "family members". Twenty-fooking-three!!!

How many do you think are really related? Is there no upper limit on this stuff. Looks like one guy can import all of Uzbekistan.

 

[OUBubba]

The NYC terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, brought in 23 "family members". Twenty-fooking-three!!!

How many do you think are really related? Is there no upper limit on this stuff. Looks like one guy can import all of Uzbekistan.

A. Those former Soviet states are the worst.
B. Is there any proof that he brought in 23? I mean I know that the President of the USA tweeted it, but, that's less accurate than Infowars or the NY Post.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The NYC terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, brought in 23 "family members". Twenty-fooking-three!!!

How many do you think are really related? Is there no upper limit on this stuff. Looks like one guy can import all of Uzbekistan.

Even Trump isn't sure that number is accurate yet its now "fact" to some.

“This man that came in, or whatever you want to call him, brought in with him other people, and he was the primary point of contact for — and this is preliminarily — 23 people that came in or potentially came in with him,” Trump said. “That’s not acceptable.”

The chances of someone coming to the country in 2010 and being a sponsor for 23 people via chain migration is remote. Of course, Visa information is confidential so verifying that number will be a challenge sans leaks.

 

[Clean]

Here's the Top Ten nationalities receiving Diversity visas:

Cameroon: 5000
Liberia: 5000
Iran: 4992
Egypt: 4988
Ethiopia: 4988
Dem. Repub. of the Congo: 4943
Ukraine: 4679
Uzbeckistan: 4368
Russia: 4103
Kenya: 3534

I'm sure this makes George Soros smile, especially after you multiple it by the average chain migration factor of at least 4, probably more like 7 or 8.

 

[Crockett]

Sen. Schumer is having the Diversity Visas hung around his neck. It was an idea he supported in 1990s but proposed to rescind as a part of broader, rejected, immigration reforms in this century. The good news is, that unlike assault-style rifles with bump stocks and hundred round magazines, there is a good chance to rid ourselves of diversity visas.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Sen. Schumer is having the Diversity Visas hung around his neck. It was an idea he supported in 1990s but proposed to rescind as a part of broader, rejected, immigration reforms in this century. The good news is, that unlike assault-style rifles with bump stocks and hundred round magazines, there is a good chance to rid ourselves of diversity visas.

The idea behind the "Diversity Visa" program isn't necessarily bad. They essentially set aside 50k visas for countries that were underrepresented in our visa admittances. Essentially, countries like Mexico, Canada, Pakistan, India, China etc. dominate our visa programs because of chain migration. These are countries that supposedly have a much smaller level of migration so they apparently wanted to encourage more.

 

[Brad Austin]

The good news is, that unlike assault-style rifles with bump stocks and hundred round magazines, there is a good chance to rid ourselves of diversity visas.

The most recent bump stock bill seems to be moving through Congress gaining bipartisan support...we'll gladly accept your offer to dump diversity visas in exchange. Thanks.