"The law is on Donald Trump's side. Doesn't mean that the courts will follow it."

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by NTA, Feb 6, 2017.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,543
    687
    113
    The Presudent does have some authority to restrict immigration.

    However, the Due Process of Law provisions of the constitution STILL apply, and the government can't just take away your property (or cause you to waste your money) or take away your liberty without a damn good reason,


    And only in true emergency circumstances can the Govt take your freedom away first and promise to hold a hearing about the fairness of it later.
     

  2. mog

    mog Active Member

    2,307
    1
    38
    I didn't think it was us that the restrictions were being put on.
     
  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,543
    687
    113
    The restrictions included lawful permanent residents and other people who were long-term visitors and workers here.
    They had long enough and deep enough ties to the USA that our constitution protects them too.
     
  4. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    A visa is not citizenship. It's a guest pass. If you don't like the idea of it being revoked, apply for citizenship.

    Just because someone is comfortable in your home, doesn't mean you don't have a right to have them leave. Investing that much time in effort in a country without obtaining citizenship is their problem, not America's.
     
  5. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,185
    247
    63
    Or get a Green Card as a Permanent Resident Alien, which comes with rights and protections. There are many levels to this whole process. The easiest is refusing to issue new visas - they are not a right. Less clear is those with visas already who have made commitments based on a good faith understanding that they have been allowed certain privileges and access by the US Government.

    The most central point in this is that relief by the Courts is typically restricted to those who have been directly harmed. Intermediaries are not typically given standing. States haven't been harmed but are asking for relief as intermediaries for those who they assert have been harmed. Hopefully the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse the Court Order and, while a trial process proceeds, the US Government can go about restricting access to the US based on the executive departments decisions.
     
  6. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,265
    527
    113
    If I was Trump (don't worry I'm not) I would use the powers of eminent domain to secure properties in the most liberal areas of California, Washington and other sanctuary cities for the import of the "refugees". I would not seek out the low rend districts as was done by the Obama hacks. I would take condos, town homes, apartment buildings and single family in some of the more prominent areas. Maybe convert some of the office buildings where those lawyers are located. I would drop screening and issue limited travel visas to restrict them to the general areas where they are located. They want them so they can take care of them. Welfare, medical and any other support needed would be provided by the city and/or state in which they live. Lets not forget the rent paid to the US treasury to repay the cost of procurement of the properties.

    I wonder how fast they would change their minds on wanting to let them in if this were to happen?
     
  7. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    599
    113
    This! They'd be howling, that's for sure. :lol:


     
  8. Siege

    Siege Active Member

    3,950
    3
    38
    The Constitution and BoR are not exclusive to American citizens, but apply to ALL persons in the United States. Just because a person is a tourist, a visa holder, or possessor of a green card does not mean they don't enjoy the same rights per the BoR that the rest of us do. In fact, about the only rights that even illegal immigrants do not enjoy are those of voting, holding federal jobs, and being elected to federal office. They don't have any inherent right to state and federal services, necessarily, or those benefits enjoyed by the tax-paying citizen that makes them possible, but that does not in any way diminish the rights guaranteed all people within the governments' purview, ala within the borders or boundaries of U.S. soil.

    https://www.nlg.org/know-your-rights/

    They are not absolved of their rights to their property or due process of law, nor their investments here just because someone - including the POTUS - decides they don't like them or their country of origin.

    Does the government have the ability to do otherwise? Yes. The authority? Maybe. The right? Not really (in my non-lawyer view), ethically or otherwise. We'd collectively dump bricks as a nation if Putin did the same thing to us that we're doing to other nations for precisely no good or justifiable reason besides Lord Dampnut's paranoia, hysteria and grandstanding from a bully pulpit. No terrorists have come from these countries. No terrorist act in this country has been committed by a refugee. No part of his ban addresses the nations where terrorists are much likely to flow in from, like most of Europe and Saudi Arabia.

    Remember, your family is an immigrant here too. I don't care if they came off the boat in 1942 or in 1492. This country as we know it was founded on immigrants, and it's strength is based directly on them and what they bring to the country - diversity of culture, thought, experience, religion, education, etc. Remember that most of our greatest minds in our country's history have been immigrants, be it from England or elsewhere.

    Yes, I'm for LEGAL immigration and not for illegal immigration. But that doesn't mean we should be giving people the shaft just for wanting to come here because a couple of narrow-minded bigots think America should only be for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who think the U.S. is a Christian nation (which even my mother, a minister, knows and happily admits to be patently untrue, and as someone capable of independent thought, recognizes that wrapping religion up in politics diminishes both institutions).
     
  9. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,265
    527
    113
    My mother was full blood Lakota Sioux. Maybe I am half immigrant but that does not change the fact I am half Native American. I don't care where the immigrants came from either. The schools are a wreck with indoctrination, Children are being brainwashed and radicalized by political activist in "institutes of higher education". So kindly tell us what those people in those seven countries ISIS has said it would infiltrate and filter through with the refugees to gain access to US soil have to offer that we as US citizens need so much. Just because they haven't carried out terrorist acts does not mean they wont. It also doesn't mean they are not already planning it. I take it from your post that you are so certain every one of them are safe bets we can hove your personal guarantee nothing will be done by any of those here or who will come here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2017
  10. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    599
    113
    Umm...the immigration order did NOTHING to restrict immigration from 40 or so other majority muslim countries.

    This was a security based decision, not a bigoted one. :roll:

    Someone took the fake news bait.
     
  11. TimBob

    TimBob Old, Slow, Boring Dude

    2,419
    156
    63
    Good post Phil1979. You nailed it.