9th Circuit Ruling and Specific Scenario

You make a good point but the NWO doesn't care.

quote:

---

That seems completely contrary to the statute, which to me, supersedes due process rights

---

If someone is entitled to due process then that cannot be taken away by statute.

quote:

---

For instance, what if the president learns through his briefings that 5 United States citizens traveled to Syria to train with ISIS with an intent to return and attack an unknown US landmark.

---

Then arrest them?

quote:

---

But, the 9th Circuit ruled that the president does not have this authority because these 5 people need to be given notice of the order and an opportunity for a hearing (in the United States) before he can ban them from re-entry.

---

It depends on what type of resident these people are.

That in no way is said in the ruling.

The 9th Circuit said that it was a violation of due process to summarily deny due process to any LPR or visa holder from those 7 countries, I am almost 100% sure it said that it would be valid to revoke individual visas for cause. Further, if that is the case, those individuals could be detained as soon as they land. When an individual is detained by CBP they are issued a Notice to Appear which serves as sufficient notice, but they can still be detained throughout the process. If there is actual intelligence of them engaging in terrorist training then they would probably be directly handed off to the FBI.

If nothing else, the due process argument was the only thing the 9th Circuit got right.

quote:

---

If someone is entitled to due process then that cannot be taken away by statute.

---

But due process is only a right granted by the constitution. That same constitution also delegated to Congress complete and exclusive authority over immigration into the country. It passed a law allowing the president to do what he did. Seems like there are dueling constitutional provisions here.

And, remember, the only federal judge to actually analyze the statute in light of constitutional rights (Gorton) held that it was constitutional.

The government could have submitted classified information to the court as evidence of the reasoning of the eo.

They opted instead to say but but but Obama picked the countries.

And they didn't submit shite.

Some classes of non-U.S. citizens are owed due process.

This includes green card holders. Anyone on our soil is owed some aspects of due process. Detainees in Gitmo are owed due process.

That isn't necessarily an exclusive list, but the answer to question is "sometimes."

quote:

---

If someone is entitled to due process then that cannot be taken away by statute.

---

As everyone knows, getting their "due process" can take a while. The ban was 90 days. Legal proceedings often take longer than that, with no one crying about having due process withheld from them.

What does that have to do with anything?

quote:

---

That seems completely contrary to the statute, which to me, supersedes due process rights.

---

I'm not too keen on due process rights for non-citizens, but if they are considered constitutionally derived (and also enforced by other portions of the INA, as well as other parts of federal law), then there should be some sort of balancing of interests.

quote:

---

For instance, what if the president learns through his briefings that 5 United States citizens traveled to Syria to train with ISIS with an intent to return and attack an unknown US landmark.

---

Then he should be able to block re-entry. But that's not what the Trump Administration is saying. They are saying that they need a temporary 90-day ban in order to study the issue further and better assess the risks, because they don't have any relevant recent intelligence to offer. That's a bit of an odd reason to say that due process rights are outweighed by immediate national security concerns.

quote:

---

The statute seems to indicate that in these situations--in the president's sole discretion--he can bar these individuals from re-entry into the United States as a matter of national security.

---

Yep. I think the main reason the 9th Circuit didn't want to overturn the TRO was because of the defects of the EO with respect to its treatment of lawful permanent residents, and with respect to it being overly broad. The Trump Administration tried to patch it up after the fact, but it would be better to just re-issue another EO that is more narrowly tailored to national security concerns.

Anyway, I wouldn't get too worked up about any of this. It's a legal case that's more based on process than substance (about a refusal to stay a TRO that blocks a 90-day EO). The Trump Administration wanted something temporary. The opposition wanted something temporary to block it. The permanent changes to immigration law are still to be determined.