Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, SpongeDad said:

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?   

His lordship takes this all VERY seriously. The bent to go after people personally is a liberal reaction to the truth, in many cases.

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

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?

The previous ban doesn't count IMO since it was fought tooth and nail from the get go.  Clock starts when this order was executed.  When those 6 countries on the list can provide the information required then it should be lifted.  Until the do, I don't care how long the ban stays in effect.  I'll take erring on the side of caution personally...

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

Still trolling...still incapable of engaging in the conversation.

I'm about to climb down so I don't have time to type about it yet. I'll get back with you in about 30 min and give you my big picture that's sure to upset the conservatives and liberals.

I admire your political football subforum dedication, if only you applied this much time and energy into something more productive...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?

That is an excellent point

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

That is an excellent point

Honestly, at this point the whole travel ban looks like a misguided attempt to fulfill Trump's campaign promise.  Fulfilling a promise is great, but making a questionably legal policy whose effectiveness at accomplishing the state goal is dubious AND risks harming our national security...that's not great.  I'm glad that they've taken their time with this revised ban, but almost all of the underlying arguments in favor of the policy right now seem undermined by the administration's posturing on it (e.g., delaying announcement/signing for political reasons, the same timeline for a ban despite having 60 days passed already).  

The whole thing looks political.  It might be legal, but it doesn't seem based on sound arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to answer the question, honestly.  I think the best I can offer is things like legislative history and intent are controversial, and interestingly, it is conservative justices (Scalia and, pointedly, Gorsuch being good examples) who don't like it.  Their attitude is we ought not to be trying to divine intent when the plain language of a statute or rule is clear.

I tend to agree with that, but at the same time I think intent is always relevant, and especially in cases like this where a policy can be crafted that is facially valid but arguably at least has the intent to discriminate.  I think in such cases we'd probably see an "as applied" analysis, meaning the statute or rule is not facially discriminatory, but is discriminatory as applied to a particular party.

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

There is also, of course, the particular problem in this case that Trump says so much outlandish **** all the time that divining intent is an exercise in futility.

:lol: True that.  

I guess where I'm at now is wondering if intent matters if the law is not de facto discriminatory.  If there is disparate treatment, then perhaps the intent of the law becomes a factor.  But how much of a factor I don't know for all the reasons you pointed out.  

I also have to think that courts tend to be incredibly deferential on issues like this involving national security.  Which is why I suspect that the current travel ban could be on very firm legal footing now (especially since actual lawyers have examined it) compared to the previous one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The alt right thinks every Middle Eastern refugee is an ISIS operative ready to blow themselves up. Liberals think Middle Eastern refugees are Little Orphan Annie's who can do no wrong. In between are average Americans who want to be inviting but understand the world we live in today. 

 

I think something that needs to be brought to attention is the differences of Muslim American culture and Middle Eastern Muslim culture. Muslim Americans are your everyday people like anyone else, trying to pay the bills. Middle Eastern Muslim are extremely conservative and put the Koran above most civil laws. Even the "moderate" Muslims would be called extreme far right here. They do hold court there in some villages to handle property disputes (like over cattle, land, or property damage). But above all, one thing I took away was their penalties for "shame". And often it was a family member punishing another family member in which you would get an attempted murder charge here. This was common in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Until you can change a mindset that law of man/human rights comes first over religion, it's going to be a tough vetting process for everyone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

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?

Actually, they are separate EO's.  The first one is null and void.  You go by what's written on that EO, nothing else IMO...

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

Irrelevant as it's now null and void.  Only look at the EO that's actually in place...

Seriously? You have GOT to be kidding.

If the courts had not blocked the original EO, it would be in effect, so we can glean the intent of the administration from the EO THAT THEY SIGNED.

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...