re: 9th Circuit Ruling and Specific Scenario

quote:

---

Their questioning clearly led to this line of reasoning. It was not reflected directly in their ruling though.

---

I understand why he and you are saying that, but the Court did not make a merits based proclamation to that effect. The questions were directed to the elements of the government's burden to put a stay on the TRO.

quote:

---

Third, no one who is objective is disputing that 8 USC 1182(f) allows POTUS to suspend the issuance of visas to certain countries, the 9th Circuit explicitly stated that the EO violated the due process rights of visa holders and LPRs (people in those 7 countries with no active visa or greencard have no due process rights which is why that part of the EO is totally Constitutional).

---

Thats nice. USC 8 1182 allows very much more than what you state.

Serious question. When the 9th Circus is once again overturned..what will your personal opinion on that be?

quote:

---

Can you point to where that supercedes the Constitution?

---

Begging the Question Fallacy.

quote:

---

In other words, he has the legal authority over immigration, but that doesn't mean he can decide to ban everybody but Christians. That would violate the Establishment Clause by given preference to a religion over all others.

---

bullshite.

Have you read USC 8 ?

It is very well established law that lawful permanent residents (green card holders) do actually have a right to due process before their right to enter the U.S. is revoked. That is what the court focused on.

quote:

---

Serious question. When the 9th Circus is once again overturned..what will your personal opinion on that be?

---

It's not going to be. The president is going to have rewrite the EO with provisions for parts that defy the Constitution. Try to remember that even the Republican judge on the bench agreed.

If you want to blame someone, blame Trumps team for doing a shite job of understanding constitutional law.

quote:

---

Begging the Question Fallacy.

---

More like me ignoring your question fallacy and showing how whatever point you're trying to make with the US code is trumped by something bigger

Well the Fifth Circuit is on the same ideological side as the majority of the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS flipped you would see those trending the other way.

We, and the rest of the West, have discriminated on refugees in terms of religion throughout history, and recently. It's not a controversial topic.

But the EO issued by Trump does not apply to lawful permanent residents:

"On February 1, 2017, the White House distributed a memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security clarifying that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the EO do not apply to lawful permanent residents. That memorandum comports with the language of the Section 3(c) which temporarily suspends “entry” of aliens from the seven subject countries. Upon returning to the United States, lawful permanent residents do not, however, typically “enter” the country for purposes of the INA. Although “entry” is no longer defined in the INA, it has been replaced with the term“admission,” which is defined as the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (emphasis added); see also Vartelas v. Holder, 556 U.S. 257, 263 (2012) (explaining that Congress made “admission” the “key word” and removed the definition of “entry” from the statute). Under the INA, lawful permanent residents are regarded as seeking admission, i.e. entry, into the United States only if they fall within six categories, including inter alia, being absent from the United States for 180 days or more. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(c). Therefore, the use of the term “entry” in Section 3(c) indicates that the suspension was not intended to be applied to lawful permanent residents."

And this is why the 9th circuit ruling is so bizarre. The 9th circuit doesn't even cite to the statute to do this analysis. The fact is they decided the case without reading the statute, and they decided it well before the moronic telephone "hearing."

The ruling explicitly addresses this, it's like you didn't even read it. It said that this memo is simply a policy directive which can be changed at any time without an EO, which is why id did not find it persuasive enough to clear the due process hurdle for LPRs. The underlying lay wasn't in question-the 9th Circuit wasn't arguing, at least in the due process section, if the 8 USC 1182(f) allowed him to do it, but if the EO he wrote was in compliance with due process concerns. Sure the standard of proof they required could be disputed, but the analysis of the statute is irrelevant in the upholding of the stay.