Jump to content

Interesting question for lawyers about Trump's revised travel ban...


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SpongeDad said:

I'm 350ft off the ground waiting for my mate to finish his climb. I chat on here in my free time. I don't live on a internet subforum btching about politics 24/7 because I actually have a life with responsibilities. 

And no, I don't agree with a lot of the travel ban. 

If you're incapable of engaging in the discussion about this topic then perhaps you should go back to focusing on your climb.  Because, again, you just spent an hour writing off-topic bulls*** instead of discussing the topic itself.  And also whining about other people's posting habits while simultaneously trolling and acting like an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

If you're incapable of engaging in the discussion about this topic then perhaps you should go back to focusing on your climb.  Because, again, you just spent an hour writing off-topic bulls*** instead of discussing the topic itself.  And also whining about other people's posting habits while simultaneously trolling and acting like an idiot.

Dude, you troll and rant all day, every day and your typical routine is to call people morons, idiots and other such childish words. Let it go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Dude, you troll and rant all day, every day and your typical routine is to call people morons, idiots and other such childish words. Let it go.

Says the bastion of civility and insightful discussion on the boards.  Just look at his posts in this thread if you want to see the quality insight and thoughtful discourse he brings.

To quote something Snake has said to several people on the boards...FO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

I am beginning to think you have No sense of history at all. I posted a FACTOID that you, I guess are upset about. I posted it because there was a long, long pause in immigration. The Congress passed the law and it wasn't removed for 40 some years. It was a response to WW1 and basicly restricted immigration for the safety of the country. I will not second guess those men but I am sure YOU WILL. 

You posted a factoid about how our country banned people that share your Jewish faith. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capologist said:

I just don't understand what the big deal is.  It's a 90 day ban on countries identified by Obama's administration as terrorist trouble spots that don't have proper methods of vetting.  It's not a "Muslim ban", almost 90% of muslims aren't even affected...

First of all, this isn't talking about whether the ban is good or bad.  It's about how the courts interpret legislative intent.

But since nobody seems to want to talk about that, a policy can be targeted at a group and simultaneously not affect all members of that group.  Discrimination doesn't require that a policy affect every member of a group.  Disproportionate impact is sufficient to prove discrimination.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

First of all, this isn't talking about whether the ban is good or bad.  It's about how the courts interpret legislative intent.

But since nobody seems to want to talk about that, a policy can be targeted at a group and simultaneously not affect all members of that group.  Discrimination doesn't require that a policy affect every member of a group.  Disproportionate impact is sufficient to prove discrimination.  

Okay, but the ban doesn't specify any one segment of population from those countries.  No one, regardless of religion, from those countries can immigrate here in that 90 day period.  I could see discrimination if it only banned muslims from those countries but that's not the case.  This isn't a new concept.  There's legal precedent for it.  I don't get the dispute other than "I dislike Trump and will fight anything and everything he tries to do".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, capologist said:

Okay, but the ban doesn't specify any one segment of population from those countries.  No one, regardless of religion, from those countries can immigrate here in that 90 day period.  I could see discrimination if it only banned muslims from those countries but that's not the case.  This isn't a new concept.  There's legal precedent for it.  I don't get the dispute other than "I dislike Trump and will fight anything and everything he tries to do".  

That is not true about the original ban.  The original ban made exemptions for non-Muslims, which meant that only Muslims were impacted.

This revised ban takes out the exemption for non-Muslims so that your description is correct.  Which leads directly to the question that I asked in the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

That is not true about the original ban.  The original ban made exemptions for non-Muslims, which meant that only Muslims were impacted.

This revised ban takes out the exemption for non-Muslims so that your description is correct.  Which leads directly to the question that I asked in the OP.

while I don't like the exception clause in the first travel ban, I think you are making a false equivalency in your initial post unless you can show equal application of our laws on citizens and potential refugees/immigrants

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

That is not true about the original ban.  The original ban made exemptions for non-Muslims, which meant that only Muslims were impacted.

This revised ban takes out the exemption for non-Muslims so that your description is correct.  Which leads directly to the question that I asked in the OP.

The original ban isn't a player in this, it was pulled back completely.  The current EO should be examined in and of itself, not with some caveat that no longer applies...

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, capologist said:

I just don't understand what the big deal is.  It's a 90 day ban on countries identified by Obama's administration as terrorist trouble spots that don't have proper methods of vetting.  It's not a "Muslim ban", almost 90% of muslims aren't even affected...

The big deal is that we are closing our borders to the people who most need our help. What's more, these are the Muslim countries from which immigration to the US is most common. Banning Muslim immigration from places form which they do not immigrate isn't really a ban.

Also, your reaction to the previous ban was that they needed 90 days to sort out the vetting process. That ban was announced on January 27th, almost 60 days ago. So by the time this order is complete, we'll be up to five months that they will take to 'sort out the vetting process'. Is there any amount of time that is unacceptable to you for us to disallow entry to the US?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dago 3.0 said:

while I don't like the exception clause in the first travel ban, I think you are making a false equivalency in your initial post unless you can show equal application of our laws on citizens and potential refugees/immigrants

It's not a false equivalency because I was setting up an extreme hypothetical to illustrate a question about when public statements by elected officials have diminishing weight in terms of judging legislative intent.

But the federal government cannot create policies regarding immigration that are based on religion.  That's a violation of federal code and probably also a violation of the 1st Amendment establishment clause.  A policy that only allowed Christians into the country would certainly represent an establishment of religion.  So the notion that laws can be discriminatory against non-citizens isn't true.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, capologist said:

The original ban isn't a player in this, it was pulled back completely.  The current EO should be examined in and of itself, not with some caveat that no longer applies...

These are not two separate EO's, though.  You can't just examine one outside the context of the other.  According to Trump and Rudy Guilliani, the intent of the law was to fulfill Trump's promise of a Muslim ban.  That's important.  But is it as important now that Trump has revised the original ban to remove some obvious parts that focused it on Muslims?  I think that's an interesting question.  How much weight do we give to public statements when establishing intent of a law that has been revised to address judicial criticism about that intent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, capologist said:

The original ban isn't a player in this, it was pulled back completely.  The current EO should be examined in and of itself, not with some caveat that no longer applies...

The original ban shows the intent of the Administration. You can't sign an executive order and then suggest that you didn't really mean it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eatcorn said:

The original ban shows the intent of the Administration. You can't sign an executive order and then suggest that you didn't really mean it.

Exactly.  But doesn't that then raise a question about judicial oversight?  If the revisions address the judicial criticisms, doesn't the evidence about intent of the administration become less meaningful?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Exactly.  But doesn't that then raise a question about judicial oversight?  If the revisions address the judicial criticisms, doesn't the evidence about intent of the administration become less meaningful?  

while I know that Trump bashing is in vogue, I would be very hesitant to approve of the courts playing thought police to interpret perfectly legal laws and actions. 

plus I would lend more weight to the law itself than any rhetoric. The fact is that it is for a relatively short period of time and has a valid reason. Superseding that with intent is a dangerous precedent IMO 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dago 3.0 said:

while I know that Trump bashing is in vogue, I would be very hesitant to approve of the courts playing thought police to interpret perfectly legal laws and actions. 

plus I would lend more weight to the law itself than any rhetoric. The fact is that it is for a relatively short period of time and has a valid reason. Superseding that with intent is a dangerous precedent IMO 

That's his point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

while I know that Trump bashing is in vogue, I would be very hesitant to approve of the courts playing thought police to interpret perfectly legal laws and actions. 

plus I would lend more weight to the law itself than any rhetoric. The fact is that it is for a relatively short period of time and has a valid reason. Superseding that with intent is a dangerous precedent IMO 

I actually agree with you, up to a point.  The president is the one responsible for assessing security threats and crafting immigration policy to address those threats.  That's not the place of a judge.  

That's kind of the point that I'm raising here.  Judges have to ensure that the law isn't unlawfully discriminatory.  We have evidence that the original travel ban was intended to be discriminatory.  But the administration revised the ban to address those concerns.  Wouldn't that overrule the weight given to the administration's intent from the original ban?  

IOW, at what point does the president's campaign statements get less weight in light of revisions to the ban that addressed the discriminatory aspect of it?  Which is why I think the president might be on more firm legal footing in this second round of lawsuits than he was during the first round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I actually agree with you, up to a point.  The president is the one responsible for assessing security threats and crafting immigration policy to address those threats.  That's not the place of a judge.  

That's kind of the point that I'm raising here.  Judges have to ensure that the law isn't unlawfully discriminatory.  We have evidence that the original travel ban was intended to be discriminatory.  But the administration revised the ban to address those concerns.  Wouldn't that overrule the weight given to the administration's intent from the original ban?  

IOW, at what point does the president's campaign statements get less weight in light of revisions to the ban that addressed the discriminatory aspect of it?  Which is why I think the president might be on more firm legal footing in this second round of lawsuits than he was during the first round.

OK in that we agree

I don't think there is any sound legal reason to overturn his travel ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

Also, your reaction to the previous ban was that they needed 90 days to sort out the vetting process. That ban was announced on January 27th, almost 60 days ago. So by the time this order is complete, we'll be up to five months that they will take to 'sort out the vetting process'. Is there any amount of time that is unacceptable to you for us to disallow entry to the US?

And this is a point that I don't think can be emphasized too much...what have they been doing all this time?  The administration's argument that this is an imminant national security threat that needed to be addressed immediately is undercut by them delaying the rollout of the new ban for days for purely political reasons.  The argument they make that they need 90 days to revise vetting is undercut by the fact that they've already had 60 days and they're asking for yet another 90 days.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

OK in that we agree

I don't think there is any sound legal reason to overturn his travel ban.

I could see some arguments, but the revisions made to the ban make those arguments a lot less effective now than they were regarding the original ban.  Unlike the first round, I don't think the legality of the ban is nearly as clear now and it seems like it will have a better chance of overcoming judicial scrutiny this time.  At least, that's my non-legal expert view of things.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

If you're incapable of engaging in the discussion about this topic then perhaps you should go back to focusing on your climb.  Because, again, you just spent an hour writing off-topic bulls*** instead of discussing the topic itself.  And also whining about other people's posting habits while simultaneously trolling and acting like an idiot.

1. I've already made my climb, and about to descend in a few min.

2. I spent an hour laughing at your liberal hysteria and having fun with it. Thanks for entertaining me while I'm sitting here gazing out at the horizon.

3. To prove you're a loon (<--- omg name calling), I've questioned YOUR political football subforum extreme dedication. Who are these "other people" you mention? How long have they been living in your head?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...