Posted on 05/08/2017 9:07:12 AM PDT by xzins
President Trump’s revised executive order, commonly referred to as the travel ban, will be reviewed by a federal appeals court on Monday afternoon.
The case, International Refugee Assistance v Trump, is centered on a battle between presidential authority and the rights of foreigners to travel to the United States. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia will decide if the travel order violates the First or Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution or the anti-discrimination section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Constitution does not usually apply to non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil. But a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School told Forbes that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does apply to the federal government. “I’m not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter,” said Jennifer Gordon. But “when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.”
The plaintiffs say that the president’s order is blatant religious discrimination since the six countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
Refugee groups will find using the Fourteenth amendments’ Equal Protection clause much tougher. The clause states that “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As the refugees are not within any state’s jurisdiction it will be difficult to argue that the clause applies to them.
The anti-discrimination section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) will apply. But it will face direct opposition from its own language. The law, passed in 1952, contains a provision in section 212(f) laying out presidential authority.
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, 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. INA was amended in 1965 to add the anti-discrimination provision that reads, “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”
The anti-discrimination provision was enacted later than the original INA so the doctrine of implied repeal may apply. When an Act of Congress conflicts with an earlier one, implied repeal dictates that the later prevails and the earlier is repealed. Implied repeal won’t come into play unless the court is unable or unwilling to reconcile the two provisions with a reasonable interpretation.
The travel order will also be decided on in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at a later date.
Awfully expensive address. I assume she managed to fleece you.
Listening to Judge Harris’ questioning of The President’s attorney sounded just like a Congressional inquiry from a panel of Democrats. Constant interruption to make liberal talking points. I had to turn it off.
It DOES NOT matter what Trump said on campaign trail.....the LAW is still the LAW..period, What do these people not understand about that
The arguments have been lively past 15 minutes. ACLU lawyer getting a grilling.
Laughing. This is hilareous. An actual snowflake prosecuting the case. Laughing out loud. I cannot believe tbis. The judges are making a fool out of him.
I’m just curious here, but what actions CAN’T be reviewed by a court?
Do those black robed demigods have ANY limits on their power?
There’s about to be one.
They have been discussing “taint” for 30 minutes. How long will Trump be “tainted” before he can do his job. “What if he says he is sorry for his campaign statement 30 times?” Is that enough? The guy is a fool. The snowflake’s name is Omar Jadwat.
I would not doubt that for a second the way things have been going. The inmates are running the asylum [Courts]. Anything that will hasten the destruction of the United States of America the Courts are all for.
Still talking about “taint”. How long does the “taint” last? Judges blasting Omar about wasting their time talking about “taint”. What if Trump does not appear serious if he appologies? Can he still do his job? Who decides his facial expression?
The left really doesn’t believe we have a right to be a sovereign nation. In their minds, foreigners really do have just as much right to be here as American citizens.
Who is responsible if a terrorist slipped thru during this “taint” discussion? Great question by the judges. Omar is wearing down. He looks worn out. Judges hammering him.
Omar states that if any other president signed the executive order he would have no problem, implies that if Obama or Hillary did it, it would be OK. Hard to believe this is happening in a court just below the SC.
Some of the judges are laughing at Omar. Others appear to be siding with him.
I heard earlier in today’s news that one of the R-appointed judges recused himself because Mr. Hall, the Acting Solicitor General of the U.S., representing President Trump, et al., is his son in law (or otherwise related, just heard in passing) and a 2nd R-appointed judge recused himself as well, leaving only 3 R appointed judges among the 12 hearing the case.
The hearing just ended. Mr. Hall, did a fine job. The ACLU lawyer was repeatedly tongue-tied under questioning by Judges Niedemeyer and Shedd. Surprisingly, Judge Diaz, an Obama appointee, asked the ACLU lawyer some pointed questions, and some more favorable than expected questioning toward the Solicitor General.
Judge Keenan and Judge King were the most hard on the Trump side of the argument.
Judge stated that order only effects about 10% of muzzies in the world.
“we don’t hate we don’t fear immigrants are welcome here”. That’s the extent of their philosophy.
The elephant in the room is Islam itself. No one can say it, but those without blinders know Islam intrinsically has an issue with terrorism and if fundamentally at odds with American values.
It would be interesting if the POTUS went in that direction, but I think his focus will be on presidential powers instead. That he could prohibit left handed people if he wanted, because he is the damn POTUS.
It is an invasion protection order.
“Jurisdiction of the laws” does not mean that Illegals can’t be prosecuted for violations. It just means, in that case, that they were born under another jurisdiction though within this country. The Anchor Baby issue was actually discussed when the 14th amendment was under debate and the conclusion of that was that there were to be no Anchor Babies.
Jurisdiction takes many forms this is just one of them. The concept grew from Natural Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.