In point of fact they do, from the moment they first interact with the US government. The President can not exclude them from immigration opportunities that are available to others solely on the basis of their religion. Again, that isn't what Trump is trying to do. The plaintiffs are alleging this because, were it true, it would be a violation of their rights.
That is not true. People who have no idea what they are talking about are why I have to remind myself not to engage on threads involving legal issues. If you have a case cite of a Supreme Court decision that gives the 7 billion people of the world US Constitutional rights, I would be happy to review it and see if it says what you claim it says.
Their first interaction could be on the battlefield.
What a ludicrous position to take.
Can someone who knows law explain something to us non-lawyers?
This seems to be a case about the facts:
A) it does not seem to be about a “muslim ban,” in that 90% of the muslim world is not affected by the travel ban.
B)There is an obvious and clear difference between the security cooperation of, on the one hand, the governments of Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Indonesia, etc., and on the other, the “governments” of Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Iran, etc.
So my question is, in the arguments presented before the Courts, is the factual basis (the DIFFERENCE between these two classes of countries) something that can or will be argued? Was it argued at the appellate level?
Or will it be limited to the question of whether the President can ban any class of non-citizen visitors he desires to ban?
Thanks in advance.