Trump’s second travel ban blocked by 2 judges

[Firestarter]

Trump’s second travel ban blocked by 2 judges

On March 6, Donald Trump signed a new executive order to ban Muslims, which was planned to take effect today (March 16). It’s really the same travel ban with some minor changes:
1) Iraq is not in the list that consists of the 6 other countries. Of course Iraq has been wonderfully democratic ever since that horrible dictator Saddam Hussein was removed.
2) Green card holders aren’t blocked, foreigners with a legal status to work and live in the USA.
3) People that already have valid visas aren’t blocked.

If the first blocking of the travel ban of the Donald Trump administration was rightfully done (remember that Trump didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court), then this new travel ban – of people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - doesn’t stand a chance.

Washington State, joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon, say the first restraining order should apply to the heart of the new travel ban. They’ve asked federal district Judge James Robart from Seattle to let the temporary restraining order against Trump’s January 27th ban also applies to this new version. Trump’s team didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the blocking of the first Muslim ban travel by Judge Robart.
They use the following legal argument “When a court enjoins a defendant from implementing policies, the defendant cannot evade that injunction simply by reissuing the same basic policies in a new form”.
Robart schedule a hearing yesterday (March 15).
These same states also argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors at universities, reducing tourism and curbing employment.
Also 2 other states have started their own lawsuits against the new travel ban in 2 federal courts — Maryland and Hawaii. Both of these lawsuits complain that the ban contravenes the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and discriminates against Muslims in violation of the equal-protection clause and the First Amendment rule against establishing religion: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/03/back-court

The 9th Circuit on Wednesday refused to reinstate the original ban.
Two Federal judges - in Hawaii and Maryland – have blocked the travel ban before taking effect. They used Trump's own words as evidence that it discriminates against Muslims.
While the Hawaii order only halts the ban temporarily, Chuang's ruling in Maryland took the form of a preliminary injunction, which will remain in effect indefinitely as the case is litigated.
Chuang did not block the entire executive order, because a temporary ban on refugees isn’t necessarily discriminatory. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case also wanted to stop a portion of the order that would reduce the number of refugees allowed to enter the country this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000.
The Trump administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States from terrorism. President Trump’s reaction to the blocking of his second travel ban was:
"This ruling makes us look weak … We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear" - http://www.dailynews.com/government...dges-find-new-trump-travel-ban-discriminatory

If I understand correctly the number of refugees allowed to enter the USA has been lawfully reduced this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. 110,000 is already much lower than the relative amount of immigrants coming to my home country the Netherlands…
I don’t believe for a second that Donald Trump really tries to ban Muslims from entering the USA; I believe that this is a charade to divert the attention from what is really going on, while marking time for the planned false flag attack at which time the legal system will get the blame for jeopardising the national security of the USA.

 

[Dr.3D]

Here's the problem....

They keep telling everybody it's a "Muslim ban" when it is really a terrorist ban.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I think a great next move, if I were Donald Trump, would be to issue another executive order banning travel and immigration from all countries.

Explosive howling would ensue!

It also would address every single one of the bogus "objections" the phony "judges" have vomited up. Let's see them issue a restraining order on that!

And it gives President Trump the absolute moral high-ground (moral in a somewhat twisted sense of the word). "Well, we tried doing it in a limited way. Twice. And insane leftists permanently embedded into the system presumed to 'overrule' it both times. We had no choice but to go all-out and shut down immigration entirely. No choice. They left us no choice." Trump gets what he wants, plus a bullet-proof excuse.

This may, in fact, be what he's been planning all along. Like him or loathe him, he does seem to always be two or three steps ahead.

 

[CPUd]

Here's the problem....

They keep telling everybody it's a "Muslim ban" when it is really a terrorist ban.

While also failing to show how banning those countries does anything to stop terrorism.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

bogus "objections" the phony "judges" have vomited up.

These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.

 

[AuH20]

These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.

Violence is the final solution. These pigs don't even recognize legal precedent that they ushered forth! No one is voting their way out of this madness.

In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.

 

[Dr.3D]

While also failing to show how banning those countries does anything to stop terrorism.

Even if it should be rather obvious, people from countries the U.S. has invaded, are most likely to hate us and would like to get even.

 

[AuH20]

So funny.

If you read the Constitutional very carefully, you'll find a passage that guarantees Hawaii a thriving tourism sector.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Even if it should be rather obvious, people from countries the U.S. has invaded, are most likely to hate us and would like to get even.

Yep. Imagine that!

At least somebody remembers the wisdom of Ron Paul. But did it have to be a giraffe?

 

[AuH20]

 

[PierzStyx]

These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.

Is it ironic when someone calling for state violence and state regulation of human movement justified by a collectivist idea of land that all people own their collectivist ideal of a nation calls another person a communist?

Socialists calling others Communist are hilarious for such silliness.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Is it ironic when someone calling for state violence

Oh, has RonPaulGeorge&Ringo called for that?

Show me the quote. Or back off.

 

[PierzStyx]

Even if it should be rather obvious, people from countries the U.S. has invaded, are most likely to hate us and would like to get even.

Except, you know, for the part where no one form those countries has attacked the USA.

"Keep in mind, there has never been an act of terrorism successfully carried out in the U.S. by a Muslim refugee or anyone from the six Muslim-majority countries the Trump administration has banned. In very rare cases, individual Muslims, as well as Christians, living in the U.S. have succumbed to ISIS’s seductive online propaganda, converting to a virulent ideology versus a real religion. And most have been caught attempting to leave the U.S. to join the promised “utopian ISIS Caliphate” in Syria."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mmigration-ban-is-counterproductive-in-war-on


"The original ban, signed late January and knocked down by a federal judge eight days later, was proposed to defend the US from terrorist attacks, despite no individual from those countries having killed a single American in a terrorist attack on US soil since 2001."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...es-terrorists-immigration-order-a7614701.html


"President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday temporarily blocking people from seven countries from entering the US on visas. The list of targeted countries is Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — all Muslim-majority countries. Trump’s order says that it protects American people from the threat of terrorism.

It doesn’t necessarily do that. But it does show that the new president is serious about putting the Islamophobia that was a central part of his campaign into practice.

That’s because none of the perpetrators of the major US terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam in the past 15 years have come from the nations on that list."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order


In fact, the deepest irony is that the countries which HAVE people who HAVE carried out terrorist attacks against the USA aren't even on the ban.


"Donald Trump’s new executive order, banning immigrants and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries, still excludes countries which sent terrorists came to the US.

The newly-worded travel ban does not include Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the United Arab Emirates - all countries with which Mr Trump did business and from where the 9/11 plane hijackers came."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...es-terrorists-immigration-order-a7614701.html


What you think is "obvious" is in fact not true.


Not that it would matter if true. Nothing in Natural Law gives you the right to regulate land you do not own privately and directly and nothing in The Constitution gives the President or any branch of the Federal government authority or power to regulate immigration in anyway.

 

[timosman]

Yep. Imagine that!

At least somebody remembers the wisdom of Ron Paul. But did it have to be a giraffe?

It does not have to be this way. What people think is not really that important. We can always bribe some politicians, install a puppet government, and then be greeted as liberators.

 

[PierzStyx]

Oh, has RonPaulGeorge&Ringo called for that?

Show me the quote. Or back off.

Ooooh, did some poor statist get triggered?


How does the State work? It works through the monopoly on violence. Whenever a law is passed it works through violence and the threat of violence. Everything the state does is through violent force of arms and anyone who chooses not to comply is violently attacked and forced to either comply, be beaten, or killed.

When you say the State ought to do something, what you are saying is that if someone doesn't do what you want they should be beaten, imprisoned in a rape cage, or even killed if they refuse to do what you want.

It is no different with immigration than with any other law.

And of course Executive Orders are even worse because they are mere unconstitutional fiat orders from whoever the Murdered-In-Chief happens to be.

 

[TheTexan]

Trump just needs to issue executive orders faster than judges can strike it down.

He should go ahead and get started on the next one.

 

[TheTexan]

Here's the problem....

They keep telling everybody it's a "Muslim ban" when it is really a terrorist ban.

Yes, this ban is a great ban. The best ban.

The so-called judges dont know what they're talking about.

 

[CPUd]

He needs to take those judges to court

 

[Dr.3D]

Yep. Imagine that!

At least somebody remembers the wisdom of Ron Paul. But did it have to be a giraffe?

Would you rather it be an elephant?

/* sniffs for elephants */

 

[TheCount]

I think a great next move, if I were Donald Trump, would be to issue another executive order banning travel and immigration from all countries.

Do you believe that is a power that the President has and/or should have?