White House: DOJ plans to defend Trump's immigration ban

SSG(P) (Join to see) - You may want to look at § 1101(13), which states that the return of a legal permanent resident is not "entry" into the United States since the LPR has already been admitted to the United States. That means that the LPR is not covered by § 1182(f), by the very terms of the act (as amended in 1996 by Pub. L. 104-208).

Next, an LPR can only be removed for the reasons in § 1227. The President is not authorized to change that law by executive order. If the LPR is to be removed, then they have to be given due process. That means that the process established by Congress under § 1229a, in an Immigration Court, in front of an Immigration Judge, and represented by legal counsel. The President is not allowed to shortcut due process.

That's just the stuff that's been addressed so far. There are other problems in the language that haven't come up yet, because there hasn't been an injured party. It will come up though, and in any event, to be disbarred, you have to commit a violation of the rules of professional conduct. What you have described is nothing approaching something that a lawyer or judge can be disbarred for.

You do realize that you're trying to explain the law to an attorney?

Capt Gregory Prickett - At first glance, didn't understand how the Judge could have prevented enforcement of Section 5(c) of the EO. Apparently, if they hadn't mentioned the 'changes to the USRAP', it would have been fine; or they could have simply changed the 50,000 refugees in Section 5(d) to 50.

CDR Jon Corrigan - that was my read, unless the judge was acting on a religious discrimination, as applied theory. I haven't looked at the arguments presented in Seattle.

SP5 Christine Conley - The Texas Rangers (the cops, not the ball team) have a saying that I've always admired.

"No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a-comin'."