Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Iranian baby scheduled for US heart surgery "banned" Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I was just semi-trolling tbh.
    Good for you
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I know. I'm somewhat hawkish on general immigration matters (I believe it needs to be reduced), but this new move by the government to stop the child refugee programme is completely disgusting. What possible reason could they have to do that? The numbers we're talking about are miniscule (a couple hundred here, a few hundred there).

    I suppose when I said "what possible reason", a possible reason is this policy of nervous conciliation to the worst elements of the lunatic right. I'm very disppointed in Theresa May, this is a huge mistake
    Possibly because a lot of those we have taken in already as children have been found to be over 18. The vetting process is being run by idiots.

    If they have a toy in their hand and they are about 3 ft 6 ins then they are a child. If they are 6ft with a beard, the latest iphone and wearing designer clothes then maybe they are not a child. It's not rocket science.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    The DOJ failed to present any evidence that there was an imminent threat from these countries. One of the reasons their appeal was refused. If they had done, then then it would have strengthened their case considerably.
    To get on the 9th circuit court of appeals you have to believe the Constitution is a pain in the ass and despise individual freedoms.

    The language in the Constitution is clear. The President alone makes the decision. He doesn't need to get the approval of any judge.

    The 9th circuit had 87% of it's rulings overturned by higher courts. This one will also be overturned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    No, it's really not. If you believe that you're quite gullible. The ban has nothing to do with actual counter-terrorism; it's purely a PR exercise. Steve Bannon admitted as much.



    If it's so easy for the terrorists to get in, why weren't they in the US already? The answer is because it's already extremely difficult to get into the US if you're from one of those countries. There have been zero deaths in terror attacks on US soil caused by people from the banned countries between 1975 and 2015.

    On the other hand, Saudi Arabia which was left out of the ban, was the origin of 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Pakistan was the source of the San Bernardino terrorists, and it also is left off the list.

    As I said, it clearly has nothing to do with counterterrorism. Steve Bannon said that it was a political move to "shock and awe" the political opposition. Bannon thinks he's much cleverer than he actually is, because the ban has simply made the White House look completely incompetent, and Trump look impotent as the courts have put a stay on the enforcement of this unconstitutional order.
    If those countries were not on the list how can you call it a ban? Why aren't all muslim countries included? Shouldn't the order say just muslims? The order stops everyone, Christians included, from coming here for 90 days.

    Trump turned down an offer by the court to review it again. He's got something up his sleeve.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    To get on the 9th circuit court of appeals you have to believe the Constitution is a pain in the ass and despise individual freedoms.

    The language in the Constitution is clear. The President alone makes the decision. He doesn't need to get the approval of any judge.

    The 9th circuit had 87% of it's rulings overturned by higher courts. This one will also be overturned.
    Not really the constitution is there to protect individual freedoms. the language was clear to the judges. They rejected the argument that the presidents decision couldnt be reviewed. He isnt above the law funnily enough and even he has to abide by the constitution. It remains to be seen whether it will be overturned. I think it unlikely it will be overturned as there appears to be no intention of taking it to the Supreme Court and he will sidestep the issue by drafting a new order that is actually legal. He should have done that in the first place.

    Btw only 0.1% of cases ever manage to get to the SC.. Will wait and see.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    If those countries were not on the list how can you call it a ban? Why aren't all muslim countries included? Shouldn't the order say just muslims? The order stops everyone, Christians included, from coming here for 90 days.

    Trump turned down an offer by the court to review it again. He's got something up his sleeve.
    A ban is simply a legal prohibition. It doesnt have to apply to all countries it can be sufficient it applies to a particular area to be unconstitutional. The issue wasnt fully tried. but the DOJ offered no evidence and the states offered enough to show that the DOJ failed to prove their reasonable chance of success. It was their own fault. All that happened was a refusal to overturn the temp suspension of the ban.

    Where is the offer by the court to review again en banc? Hasnt been reported here. Care to link?

    It doesnt matter anyway because he will just draft a new order which would be far faster and they can make sure its legal this time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Not really the constitution is there to protect individual freedoms. the language was clear to the judges. They rejected the argument that the presidents decision couldnt be reviewed. He isnt above the law funnily enough and even he has to abide by the constitution. It remains to be seen whether it will be overturned. I think it unlikely it will be overturned as there appears to be no intention of taking it to the Supreme Court and he will sidestep the issue by drafting a new order that is actually legal. He should have done that in the first place.

    Btw only 0.1% of cases ever manage to get to the SC.. Will wait and see.
    Gee! I had no idea the Pres. wasn't above the law and that he too has to abide by the Constitution. Glad you cleared that up for me.

    We have three branches of Gov. Each one is supposed to be CO-EQUAL. This is what the 9th court seems to have ignored.
    It's the opinion of many here on TSR that the U.S. President is not as powerful as one might think when it comes to accomplishing what needs to get done. I wouldn't say they were wrong. To help maintain an even balance of power within the three branches, the Pres. was given authority to issue E.O.s and it wasn't meant for a couple of left wing activist judges to strip the Pres. of an important tool he has to work with. They're suppose to look only at what's written. They did, Im sure, and found it within the scope of powers given the Pres. and found nothing so they fovused on areas that, frankiy, their not qualified to even have a serious opinion on.

    Little terrorist activity in the countries named in the order. A guess on their part at best.

    Efficacy of the order. The judges could have recognized that this is a strategy that hasn't been tried for the intended purpose and allow the order to stand so that the strategy could be developed

    Trump is handling it correctly. He;s publicly told them what he thinks of their ability to be unbiased by turning them down on the offer to review the Order again and he'll simply write an order around these freaks.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    [...]
    I can't tell whether you're a troll or just unbelievably stupid.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Gee! I had no idea the Pres. wasn't above the law and that he too has to abide by the Constitution. Glad you cleared that up for me.

    We have three branches of Gov. Each one is supposed to be CO-EQUAL. This is what the 9th court seems to have ignored.
    It's the opinion of many here on TSR that the U.S. President is not as powerful as one might think when it comes to accomplishing what needs to get done. I wouldn't say they were wrong. To help maintain an even balance of power within the three branches, the Pres. was given authority to issue E.O.s and it wasn't meant for a couple of left wing activist judges to strip the Pres. of an important tool he has to work with. They're suppose to look only at what's written. They did, Im sure, and found it within the scope of powers given the Pres. and found nothing so they fovused on areas that, frankiy, their not qualified to even have a serious opinion on.

    Little terrorist activity in the countries named in the order. A guess on their part at best.

    Efficacy of the order. None of their business.

    Trump is handling it correctly. He;s publicly told them what he thinks of their ability to be unbiased by turning them down on the offer to review the Order again and he'll simply write an order around these freaks.
    Clearly you hadnt bothered to read the judgment or appreciate what legal arguments were considered. Clearly you didnt understand what they had to prove to get the suspension listed. If they had used their brains, then they could have written a better order that would have been legal and therefore wouldnt have been suspended in the first place. That is what they will attempt to do the next time.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    I can't tell whether you're a troll or just unbelievably stupid.
    Neither i am a British nationalist and have been getting an average of 96% at university
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Clearly you hadnt bothered to read the judgment or appreciate what legal arguments were considered. Clearly you didnt understand what they had to prove to get the suspension listed. If they had used their brains, then they could have written a better order that would have been legal and therefore wouldnt have been suspended in the first place. That is what they will attempt to do the next time.
    The Order was legal. These judges wanted assurances those being vetted would receive due process. People who have never set foot on U.S. soil are nor entitled to due process. Who coulda guessed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)


    The 9th circuit had 87% of it's rulings overturned by higher courts. This one will also be overturned.
    In the period 1999-2008 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handled
    114,199 cases. In the same period the Supreme Court ie the only higher court took 675 cases across the entire USA of which 175 came from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Of those 175 cases, 80% were overturned ie 140. This was the second highest percentage. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had 83% reversed. The smallest percentage of reversals was from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals at 55%



    So in what world is 140/114199 *100 equal to 87%?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    The Order was legal. These judges wanted assurances those being vetted would receive due process. People who have never set foot on U.S. soil are nor entitled to due process. Who coulda guessed.

    Its all very well saying its legal but for now the courts have unanimously said it i

    The issues under consideration were more than just due process, these are all covered in the judgment, which you show no signs of having read. The DOJ failed to make its case for the lifting of the suspension, so quite rightly lost..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Its all very well saying its legal but for now the courts have unanimously said it i

    The issues under consideration were more than just due process, these are all covered in the judgment, which you show no signs of having read. The DOJ failed to make its case for the lifting of the suspension, so quite rightly lost..
    I mentioned the Due Process to illustrate the rabid level the Left will reach for to try and slow up Trump as he steamrolls over them. How could the DOJ have known the the Judges were going to ask for safeguards to assure Due Process to non-citizens.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I mentioned the Due Process to illustrate the rabid level the Left will reach for to try and slow up Trump as he steamrolls over them. How could the DOJ have known the the Judges were going to ask for safeguards to assure Due Process to non-citizens.
    You show zero signs that you have actually bothered to read the full judgment.
    You show zero signs that you understood what the legal issues were.
    Read the judgment.

    It was obvious what they were going to have to prove. They are lawyers and they failed to provide any evidence to support their claim.

    They LOST, just move on like everyone else. If they feel the judges were wrong then they should appeal. Alternatively they could just draft an order that was legally correct and avoided the deficiencies that were present in the one which was suspended.

    Ps your idea that due process isnt an important issue is laughable. In terms of the case he hasnt steamrollered over anyone. It was all entirely avoidable if he had put some thought into drafting the original order.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    How could the DOJ have known the the Judges were going to ask for safeguards to assure Due Process to non-citizens.
    Perhaps by reading Scalia J's judgment in the 7-2 Supreme Court decision Clark v Martinez


    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...1/opinion.html


    where he holds that an alien sex offender, burglar and multiple armed robber whom the President could not legally admit to the United States because of the severity of his crimes nonetheless has due process rights under the Constitution and cannot be detained by the US government pending deportation if deportation is not feasible.

    In the US it would be regarded as grounds for being certified as insane to consider the late Scalia J as being part of the "rabid left"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Perhaps by reading Scalia J's judgment in the 7-2 Supreme Court decision Clark v Martinez


    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...1/opinion.html


    where he holds that an alien sex offender, burglar and multiple armed robber whom the President could not legally admit to the United States because of the severity of his crimes nonetheless has due process rights under the Constitution and cannot be detained by the US government pending deportation if deportation is not feasible.

    In the US it would be regarded as grounds for being certified as insane to consider the late Scalia J as being part of the "rabid left"
    your example does not fit the debate. Of course, ANYONE, who is WITHIN OUR BORDERS enjoys the protections of the Constitution
    Thats exactly the reason why the Pres. plan calls for the vetting process to occur in the country of origin Before they've reached our shores.
    The E.O. was simply a 90 day temporary halt to admissions until the Administration could find a way to accomplish this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    your example does not fit the debate. Of course, ANYONE, who is WITHIN OUR BORDERS enjoys the protections of the Constitution
    I am aware of that. You however said:


    How could the DOJ have known the the Judges were going to ask for safeguards to assure Due Process to non-citizens.
    But the protection of the US Constitution is not limited to those are are within its borders. It is also available to those who were within its borders and have temporarily left. It is also available to those, like Martinez or those detained at the airports a couple of weeks ago who are physically on US soil but deemed not to be. It is possibly also available to the close relations in the USA of people who have never set foot in the USA.

    The EO withdrew the visas of members of all of these groups.

    It is clearly possibly to draw up an EO that does things to people who have no constitutional rights rights, and now no doubt Trump was wishing he had done that. That wasn't what he chose to do, and he is now reaping the consequences.

    Moreover the non-discrimination provisions added to the statute that purported to allow Trump to ban any class of traveller, may give statutory rights to people who no Constitutional rights. That is at present unclear. Someone must have standing to enforce those non-discrimination provisions.

    Those who justify Trump do it, as you have just done, by making inaccurate statements of the law, and then when called out about it, change their position.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am aware of that. You however said:




    But the protection of the US Constitution is not limited to those are are within its borders. It is also available to those who were within its borders and have temporarily left. It is also available to those, like Martinez or those detained at the airports a couple of weeks ago who are physically on US soil but deemed not to be. It is possibly also available to the close relations in the USA of people who have never set foot in the USA.

    The EO withdrew the visas of members of all of these groups.

    It is clearly possibly to draw up an EO that does things to people who have no constitutional rights rights, and now no doubt Trump was wishing he had done that. That wasn't what he chose to do, and he is now reaping the consequences.

    Moreover the non-discrimination provisions added to the statute that purported to allow Trump to ban any class of traveller, may give statutory rights to people who no Constitutional rights. That is at present unclear. Someone must have standing to enforce those non-discrimination provisions.

    Those who justify Trump do it, as you have just done, by making inaccurate statements of the law, and then when called out about it, change their position.
    've changed my position on nothing. I just forgot to add "...living abroad." to my sentence.
    I can't think of any situation where a foreign national residing outside U.S. borders with no connection to the U.S. would be entitled to Constitutional protections.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    've changed my position on nothing. I just forgot to add "...living abroad." to my sentence.
    I can't think of any situation where a foreign national residing outside U.S. borders with no connection to the U.S. would be entitled to Constitutional protections.
    That has to be right but very few visa applicants will have literally no connection to the US. That connection may very tenuous (booking a two week holiday at Disneyland) or very substantial (a spouse, an American born child, a house, personal effects, a job, but short of permanent residence) or anywhere in between. At some point (but what point) the protection of the Constitution will kick in.

    However does the Congressional protection under the no discrimination in Immigration statute extent to a greater body of people that the Constitutional protection?

    There are clear signs that Conservatives on the Supreme Court think that madness lies in trying to answer these questions. Every case turns on its own facts and so every alien has his own Constitutional battle. Scalia in particular seemed more interested in asking what due process requires rather than whether someone is entitled to it Due process protects substantive rights and for those with no right to be in the US, it bites on nothing.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.