Posted on Mar 16, 2017
Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban
2.33K
75
57
3
2
1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wednesday-morning/2017/03/14/b2d24636-090c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.f [login to see] 8
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck"
"A rose by any other name"
"SS,DD"
It doesn't matter how Trump tries to package this, it's still the same old song and dance and it's still unconstitutional.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Benjamin Franklin
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck"
"A rose by any other name"
"SS,DD"
It doesn't matter how Trump tries to package this, it's still the same old song and dance and it's still unconstitutional.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Benjamin Franklin
Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Donald Trump
Judge
Hawaii
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 13
10
10
0
President Trump enacted his executive order pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. §1182(f), which states as follows:
“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."
The Supreme court has already ruled on this. the judges were wrong the first time around the judge was wrong this time.
“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."
The Supreme court has already ruled on this. the judges were wrong the first time around the judge was wrong this time.
(10)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - Then when does 8 U.S.C.A. §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."
apply?
“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."
apply?
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - it applies to non-citizens and non-LPRs. That's it. Trump doesn't get to arbitrarily deport people because he had a bad day.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
SSG Michael Hartsfield ok we get it, you do not like the current President of the United States. No further posts about your dislike for him required. Point taken. Got it. Roger Out.
(6)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
This is where you got me confused. If Trump actually dies something resembling governing instead of Twitter attacks and attention-whoring behavior, I'll give the devil his due. I'm adult enough and confident enough in myself to admit when I'm wrong. All he has done is go on his "Look at me!! Aren't I great?" tours and hide out at his resort, on the tax payers dime I might add
(0)
(0)
You might want to look up the word constitution and do a little research into who it applies to
(6)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SGM Erik Marquez & MAJ Byron Oyler - that's not entirely correct. There has been no finding to date by the Supreme Court on if the First Amendment applies to entry into the United States. It is impossible to say if it applies or not.
Constitutional rights do apply to all persons within the U.S., whether they are here legally or not. In some cases, rights apply on an extraterritorial basis. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
While due process rights and right to counsel do not apply to someone who has not yet been admitted, it is unclear if the rights in the First Amendment do not apply.
Constitutional rights do apply to all persons within the U.S., whether they are here legally or not. In some cases, rights apply on an extraterritorial basis. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
While due process rights and right to counsel do not apply to someone who has not yet been admitted, it is unclear if the rights in the First Amendment do not apply.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
Capt Gregory Prickett - sir
Sight the case law and USSC decision that supports non US citizens outside of the US as having rights under the constution of the US.
Sir we both know no such case law or USSC decision exists.
Until it does my position that non us citizens living outside the US have no constitutional rights is valid.
As yours would be if you say they do have constitutional rights neither of us have caselaw or Supreme Court decision to back up our opinions I except that
Nevertheless my opinion is non-US citizens outside the US have no constitutional rights under the US Constitution
Sight the case law and USSC decision that supports non US citizens outside of the US as having rights under the constution of the US.
Sir we both know no such case law or USSC decision exists.
Until it does my position that non us citizens living outside the US have no constitutional rights is valid.
As yours would be if you say they do have constitutional rights neither of us have caselaw or Supreme Court decision to back up our opinions I except that
Nevertheless my opinion is non-US citizens outside the US have no constitutional rights under the US Constitution
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SGM Erik Marquez - Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) is one, where non-citizens being held by the U.S. military outside of the United States still have the constitutional right for a writ of habeas corpus. That's why I cited it above.
See also Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). All deal with constitutional rights outside of the U.S.
See also Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). All deal with constitutional rights outside of the U.S.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
Capt Gregory Prickett - "being held by the U.S"
That puts then "In the US" if not physically, then still under US control.
YES, I understand that case is an exception....but only because they are in a US detention facility, under US control.... But that is NOT what we are discussing...
We are discussion Non US citizens Not in the US (or in US Detention facility, under US control)
That is the demographic the temporary travel ban is targeting...That is the demographic who has NO constitutional rights under US law, thus the travel ban can not be "unconstitutional" at least in my non lawyer, laymen understanding.
That puts then "In the US" if not physically, then still under US control.
YES, I understand that case is an exception....but only because they are in a US detention facility, under US control.... But that is NOT what we are discussing...
We are discussion Non US citizens Not in the US (or in US Detention facility, under US control)
That is the demographic the temporary travel ban is targeting...That is the demographic who has NO constitutional rights under US law, thus the travel ban can not be "unconstitutional" at least in my non lawyer, laymen understanding.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google