U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Travel Ban

[joan1984]

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the President's right to control immigration, specifically overruling many lower courts who refused to follow the Constitution in the case of the Travel Ban on hostile and uncooperative countries, defined by name, which SCOTUS has allowed to be in full force since December.

Most knowledgable people expected this ruling, which reaffirms the President has such a power by virtual of his Office. The usual suspects, of course, who were wrong as usual, dissented, to no avail.

Pity it took so long.

More Winning.

Period.

https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/Court-upholds-Trump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim

[Athos_131]

Go Fuck Yourself.

#Resist

[Katiebee]

As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the President's right to control immigration, specifically overruling many lower courts who refused to follow the Constitution in the case of the Travel Ban on hostile and uncooperative countries, defined by name, which SCOTUS has allowed to be in full force since December.

Most knowledgable people expected this ruling, which reaffirms the President has such a power by virtual of his Office. The usual suspects, of course, who were wrong as usual, dissented, to no avail.

Pity it took so long.

More Winning.

Period.

https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/Court-upholds-Trump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim

you know, Joan, this was not a post acknowledging breaking news so much as gloating. You certainly influence people negatively by posting in such a negative, snide, and insulting manner.

[joan1984]

Gloating, eh...

If I post "news", which this story is, of course, in a open discussion forum, it gets moved as soon as our less savory troll uses attacking words, or scat references, "to have it moved" to 1408, where he can say what he really likes.

Was it the "MAGA" comment that triggered you, Katiebee?

Since SCOTUS found, as had to be expected, that the President has the full right to take this action, as was the President's claim, as has been precedent in other Administrations... the waste of time and resources has been the kicking and screaming Democrats and Rinos who refuse to accept reality, at great expense to our Country, and I see no end to it.

Gloating indeed, when SCOTUS rules as they 'must' rule, to uphold the Constitution, against attack by leftists of all stripes, the enemies within, who are well represented here, unfortunately.

Sorry you did not just read the article, and try to digest it, accept it, and not take it so personally when what you cheered on, you 'collectively' as leftists, Democrats and Rinos, and you outright Marxists, and Bernie supporters, and Mainstream Media, but again, I am being redundant.

What issue do you suggest we drag out for a year NEXT? I am sure Dems are paying lawyers as we speak to challenge whatever next actions WhiteHouse may take, to better our nation, and uphold existing law.

Just say "Aaaah..." and let it happen, so we can move on to important stuff.

[Athos_131]

What issue do you suggest we drag out for a year NEXT? I am sure Dems are paying lawyers as we speak to challenge whatever next actions WhiteHouse may take, to better our nation, and uphold existing law.

An executive order is not an existing law.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[joan1984]

  The 'existing law' is the U.S. Constitution, and it is clear as to powers of the Executive, as upheld in this ruling, and as has always be so upheld. How the Obama appointed judges in HI and CA can rule otherwise, and honor Oaths of Office is what is worth questioning, and how to see to it they never do it again.

What issue do you suggest we drag out for a year NEXT? I am sure Dems are paying lawyers as we speak to challenge whatever next actions WhiteHouse may take, to better our nation, and uphold existing law.

An executive order is not an existing law.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

  The 'existing law' is the U.S. Constitution

If the law was in the U.S. Constitution, an executive order would not be needed.  It would be an existing law.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

hostile and uncooperative countries, defined by name.

Enemies of the State.  So, the next logical step is to amend The New Collosus to read:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...

Unless they're Muslems, Mexican, or refugees from the following countries:

...

Fuck them, only the cool kids get to enjoy freedom."

Yes, it is within his Executive Power to make a list of the kinds of undesirables it's okay to round up, and deport.  Threaten their children, and transport like livestock.

Just like it was in Eichmann's power.  That doesn't make it right.  It makes it Reich.

[joan1984]

Seems SCOTUS agrees that President Trump has the power. How you find that white people are exempt from the rules for access to the U.S. is beyond me.

Legal entry is just that, legal entry. Follow the process, ask for a Visa, or live in a nation that conforms with information sharing, whose information is worthy of consideration for being accurate and worthy of belief, and all is well.

The process for Asylum is not to drag your children 2000 miles through desert and criminals, but to simply go to the nearest American Embassy.

Try to visit Canada without ID, just show up at the border. Not gonna happen.
Try to visit Mexico, without ID, just show up at the border. Not gonna happen.
Same here.

[psiberzerker]

How you find that white people are exempt from the rules for access to the U.S. is beyond me.

Looking at the shitlist.  Which countries are considered Enemies of the State, to ban travel from.  Solevenia?  No problem with immigrants, and children of immigrants from Slovenia.  Mexico?  We need a WALL and it's okay to imprison Children based soley on the nation of their parent's origin.

Carte Blanche.  Look it up.  We're not talking about IDs, we're not talking about known criminals.  We're talking about the ruling that Nation of Origin is ALL the USC&I needs to deny travel, and deport people.  It's okay to imprison children, even naturally born citizens, to threaten their families, if they're Mexican.

In practice, and policy making it a crime to be born Mexican American.

[Athos_131]

The process for Asylum is not to drag your children 2000 miles through desert and criminals, but to simply go to the nearest American Embassy.

Bullshit.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/faq/who-eligible-apply-asylum

You may only apply for asylum if you are arriving in or already physically present in the United States. To apply for asylum in the United States, you may ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport, or border crossing), or, if you are already in the United States, you may file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, at the appropriate Service Center. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status, whether you are here legally or illegally.

Stop fucking lying.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Stop fucking lying.

#Resist

There's a difference between lying, and willful ignorance.  See, if you don't actually read the SCotUS ruling, then you can just make up what it says, add the word "Criminals," and say with a straight face that it's about "Immigration," and "National Security" instead of restricting ingress from Mexico, not Canada, Africa, but not Europe.

[joan1984]

Please point out where Mexico is listed in the Executive Order. It is not listed.
That said, all countries are expected to inspect and confirm Visa authority for the traveller coming to the United States, for visitors who travel by air+sea.

Foot traffic without a Visa or some authorized documents should not be passed through Mexico exit stations, same as foot traffic exiting the US without being a US Citizen, or otherwise having authorization granted by Mexico for entrance should not be passed through on their way to Mexico.

Mexico is being complicit in the attack on our border, by giving 72 hour passes to otherwise unauthorized persons, so they can pass thru Mexico on their way here. This needs to be addressed, and will be addressed, of course, same with the Central American nations who allow unidentified, visaless travellers to head toward the US. Takes longer to handle on diplomatic efforts, or by force if it is needed, but it will be addressed.

Meanwhile, we deal with the criminal unauthorized entry along the RioGrande, and with those who are flooding our Ports of Entry, as they are vetted and detained.

How you find that white people are exempt from the rules for access to the U.S. is beyond me.

Looking at the shitlist.  Which countries are considered Enemies of the State, to ban travel from.  Solevenia?  No problem with immigrants, and children of immigrants from Slovenia.  Mexico?  We need a WALL and it's okay to imprison Children based soley on the nation of their parent's origin.

Carte Blanche.  Look it up.  We're not talking about IDs, we're not talking about known criminals.  We're talking about the ruling that Nation of Origin is ALL the USC&I needs to deny travel, and deport people.  It's okay to imprison children, even naturally born citizens, to threaten their families, if they're Mexican.

In practice, and policy making it a crime to be born Mexican American.

[Athos_131]

There's a difference between lying, and willful ignorance.  See, if you don't actually read the SCotUS ruling, then you can just make up what it says, add the word "Criminals," and say with a straight face that it's about "Immigration," and "National Security" instead of restricting ingress from Mexico, not Canada, Africa, but not Europe.

The poster in question has a very long history of lying.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Please point out where Mexico is listed in the Executive Order. It is not listed.

So, it's not about Mexico, then:

That said, all countries are expected to inspect and confirm Visa authority for the traveller coming to the United States, for visitors who travel by air+sea.

Foot traffic without a Visa or some authorized documents should not be passed through Mexico exit stations, same as foot traffic exiting the US without being a US Citizen, or otherwise having authorization granted by Mexico for entrance should not be passed through on their way to Mexico.

Mexico is being complicit in the attack on our border, by giving 72 hour passes to otherwise unauthorized persons, so they can pass thru Mexico on their way here. This needs to be addressed, and will be addressed, of course, same with the Central American nations who allow unidentified, visaless travellers to head toward the US. Takes longer to handle on diplomatic efforts, or by force if it is needed, but it will be addressed.

Meanwhile, we deal with the criminal unauthorized entry along the RioGrande, and with those who are flooding our Ports of Entry, as they are vetted and detained.

Then why all that about foot-traffic from Mexico, and not foot traffic from Canada?  Is it because Canada is white, or because it would cost to much to cover the Canadian Border with a wall?  Why all this focus on Mexico?  Because I guarandamnedtee you that ALL Mexicans are NOT CRIMINALS.

Abandon that talking point, and then get back to me when you have a point that doesn't fucking Depend on it.

[Lois]

The decision was 5-4 along ideological lines.  This decision would not have occurred without the GOP usurping the US Constitution and allowing Trump to appoint Gorsuch.  I hope once Democrats take back the government this is reversed and Gorsuch is removed from the bench.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 17–965

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HAWAII, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 26, 2018]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting.

The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality
in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.  But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created.  Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer  would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by
anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that  plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our
precedent, I dissent.

You can read the rest here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4560160/SCOTUS-Trump-v-Hawaii-Justice-Sotomayor-dissenting.pdf

[psiberzerker]

The decision was 5-4 along ideological lines.  This decision would not have occurred without the GOP usurping the US Constitution and allowing Trump to appoint Gorsuch.

Right, because Obama was bla.  I mean because of the rule that we smacked down, without even bringing it to a vote when it didn't matter.  What are we calling that now? 

I know, let's call it the Biden rule, because he made a speach about it that one time, it was completely ignored, and we suddenly developed a sense of irony, too!

Or you know, totally not racist reasons.  At all.

[RopeFiend]

I'm confuzzled how Sotomayor can amusingly call this a 'Muslim ban' when so many countries with a strong Islamic contingent are NOT on the travel ban: only the extremist states.  I personally wouldn't class Iran as 'extremist', although it's not a nice place to live if you're not Muslim.

Several years ago when I had employees that I was responsible for, two of my 3 best people were from Iran (brother and sister), and the third was a young woman from rural Nepal.  I'd hire any of the three again in a heartbeat.  However, some of my most useless employees were from other Islamic areas of the Middle East, and I wouldn't hire any of them back if they paid me.  Total over 7 years I had ~ 60 or 70 people come and go, mostly looking elsewhere for better pay.  I congratulated the good folks, and was happy to see the others go bye-bye.

[Lois]

That is because he said during his campaign he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States because of terrorism fears.  When the court stepped in and put a stop to it, the ban was revised to include two non-Muslim countries.

Sotomayor is looking at what she considers the original intent of the ban, while the court's majority is saying they are only looking at how it is written now.

I am still puzzled by the ban.  If the reason is to stop terrorists, why aren't Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the list?  These two countries account for all the 9-11 hijackers.  And why isn't Pakistan on the list? People from Pakistan have also committed terrorist acts in the USA.

I believe the real reason to exclude Libya, Somalia, Syria and  Yemen is because these are countries from refugees are fleeing horrible situations and Trump does not want them in the U.S.  There is no need to exclude Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi's are happy enough at home and not an immigration problem.