You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
55

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 1 points 55 points (+56|-1) ago 

Source material is always good. So let's see what the law actually says.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

What this means is, the judge who told him to stop is in violation of US law. The President and DHS has power of law to completely ignore the judge telling Trump to stop. The judge has no standing. Not only does executive order provide legal writ to guide the executive branch on how to implement law, the law literally says Trump is entirely within the powers granted to him by the law, regardless of it being an executive order. You can't even argue this is an abuse of power. Such execution is explicitly granted by the law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

According to the US Code of Law, Trump is entirely within the law as granted by the US Congress. Period.

1
13

[–] chicken_nugget [S] 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

You are amazing, thank you. I apologize for my request, but I am of the younger and am not too skilled or educated in many areas of the law.

0
10

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Glad I could help.

0
6

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It "seems" like it might be Unconstitutional because the First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws that prohibit the free expression of religion and this executive order has a "disproportionate impact" (a stupid* leftist legal doctrine) on Muslims.

When it comes down to it, though, this policy is not a law passed by Congress directly affecting US citizens. It also does not explicitly target Muslims--it targets foreign nations such as Syria and Iran, etc.

*E.g., laws against murder have a disproportionate impact on murderers.

0
3

[–] OtherSterling 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Asking questions is one of the ways in which we learn and grow. There is no shame in seeking knowledge.

2
5

[–] Scrapco 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

That doesn't really answer OP's question though (hi @chicken_nugget), and while it's relevant, isn't the initial issue at stake here.

People who were already in the US, or on the way when the order was signed, and had arrived legally (on valid visas or whatever) were being detained and threatened with deportation.

The argument is that it's violating the due process parts of the Fifth. Because the people were legally able to come (and granting a visa to them implies that they were screened; you can argue that separately, but we did approve them), they do have certain rights even as non-citizens; one of those is that we can't detain them indefinitely without a hearing. They're lawful visitors - this isn't a case of them sneaking across the border, where they'd have far fewer rights. Another part of due process is that you can't discriminate based on national origin or religion, both of which are being violated here.

You don't have to agree with it, but those are the arguments.

1
4

[–] ThisOtherGuy 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Obama already established legal precedent by doing exactly this with Cubans before he left office. Strangely you're not hearing outrage about this. I wonder why?

0
1

[–] chicken_nugget [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you as well! Although, if I'm not mistaken, weren't some of those detained then released after some talking to? I haven't heard of any cases of indefinite detainment.

0
1

[–] Empress 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you!!

0
0

[–] gh0sth4ck3d 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Is there a reasonable way to find out when that provision was signed into law? Thanks in adavance.

0
1

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm not sure. I know it was used at least as far back as Carter and was passed by Democrats. It has been used by Carter, Reagan, and Clinton. Seems it's only racists and xenophobic when Trump does it.