- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How is this EO being challenged by actual judges?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:08 pm
8 U.S. Code 1182(f) is so explicit on this matter I can't believe a federal judge actually issued an emergency stay on Trump's temporary immigration ban.
5
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:13 pm to RollTide1987
8 USC 1152(a) is from a later bill
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:15 pm to RollTide1987
Washington argued it had a negative impact on their state and the state federal judge agreed.
This is about federal over reach.
Also why were those 7 countries listed as a threat? Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have caused more danger to the safety of the us. The EO didn't account for that.
This is about federal over reach.
Also why were those 7 countries listed as a threat? Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have caused more danger to the safety of the us. The EO didn't account for that.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:16 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
How is this EO being challenged by actual judges?
It's not. It's being challenged by people with actual standing and ruled on by Judges........... Next question.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:20 pm to RollTide1987
8 U.S. Code § 1182 has been amended significantly since its enactment.
For example, the 1965 Hart-Cellar act states: "...No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence..."
Many legal scholars argue that this makes prohibiting a person's travel only because of national origin illegal. So, there are definitely legal questions behind this order that need to be sorted out.
Also, one of these most important functions of the federal courts are to sort out questions involving statutory interpretation. Yes it's a difficult and tedious process, but it exists for an important reason. I'd suggest not criticizing or questioning a federal judge's decisions without at least adequately researching the legal questions involved.
LINK to Hart-Cellar act
For example, the 1965 Hart-Cellar act states: "...No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence..."
Many legal scholars argue that this makes prohibiting a person's travel only because of national origin illegal. So, there are definitely legal questions behind this order that need to be sorted out.
Also, one of these most important functions of the federal courts are to sort out questions involving statutory interpretation. Yes it's a difficult and tedious process, but it exists for an important reason. I'd suggest not criticizing or questioning a federal judge's decisions without at least adequately researching the legal questions involved.
LINK to Hart-Cellar act
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:21 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Also why were those 7 countries listed as a threat?
Because they are failed states that lack stable governments and therefore cannot fully vet the people who come over here escaping the conflicts raging in those nations.
quote:
Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have caused more danger to the safety of the us.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while severely backwards, have governments that are very stable and that work with our own intelligence agencies to defeat Islamic radical groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:22 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Washington argued it had a negative impact on their state and the state federal judge agreed.
Then leave the doors unlocked to the state of Washington. The rest of the country would like our doors controlled when they open.
quote:
This is about federal over reach.
Explain???
quote:
Also why were those 7 countries listed as a threat? Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have caused more danger to the safety of the us. The EO didn't account for that.
The Obama Admisitration selected those 7 countries.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have mechanisms in place allowing us to properly vett citizens from their countries. Until the others also do they should continue to be halted until proper procedures are in place. If someone is a potential danger then DON'T LET THEM IN! Is it seriously THAT difficult to understand. The President is trying to protect us all.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:24 pm to RollTide1987
It just takes one judge to challenge anything. He will be rebuked and embarrassed by the appeals court.
He's a left wing activist judge who doesn't care about the law.
(I don't care who appointed him. People change)
He's a left wing activist judge who doesn't care about the law.
(I don't care who appointed him. People change)
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:35 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:37 pm to Sao
I'll bump when appeals court overturns this
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:39 pm to Bayou
Trump has said the Obama admin was massively incompetent.
But this one thing they got just right?
But this one thing they got just right?
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:39 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Bump now and show me his recent looney toon left wing case decision papers.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:40 pm to mahdragonz
Logic fail
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:40 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Because they are failed states that lack stable governments and therefore cannot fully vet the people who come over here escaping the conflicts raging in those nations.
Ummmm... Iran's government is stable. Trump just doesn't like them.
My uncle, a judge, and my wife, a lawyer, say that these judges are absolutely in the right.
This post was edited on 2/4/17 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:41 pm to Iosh
quote:
8 USC 1152(a) is from a later bill
That's a restriction for within one country, not a restriction on the countries selected for visas.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:42 pm to dmjones
quote:
Trump just doesn't like them.
Who does? They are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:43 pm to dmjones
Then it's settled.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:44 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Washington argued it had a negative impact on their state and the state federal judge agreed. This is about federal over reach. Also why were those 7 countries listed as a threat? Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have caused more danger to the safety of the us. The EO didn't account for that. There's a calm before the storm, I know; it's been comin' for some time.
So add them mother frickers to the list too.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:47 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Who does? They are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.
Israel is up there as well.
The point remains that they have a stable government capable of keeping records and vetting their own citizens. Hell, young Iranians, generally speaking, are highly educated and very pro-western world.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:51 pm to Tigereye10005
(f) stands on its own
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News