World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

A question I have, though: What Constitutional rights are conferred on non-citizens? Because it seems like that's what we're doing with these, basically treating them as citizens. I recognize that non-citizens are afforded some degree of Constitutional rights, but haven't courts ruled on this kind of stuff before?

[marurun]

He's definitely on the fascist train as well, but part of why it's not gaining traction is that the left has demonized even well-meaning conservatives, so even if Trump is a fascist, there are enough people that don't believe it because it's been said before, about much better and moral people than Trump.

And Republicans demonized and obstructed Obama and all liberals. We've been around this several times. Look at Mitch McConnell's pronouncements during Obama's presidency. You would be hard pressed to find a more vocal oppositional politician. In current politics, moderation is a flaw. And when we elect moderates, the Republican and Democratic parties force them into partisanship. There's a lot of pressure to toe the party line, and because we've decided we're married so closely to this two-party system, because we've allowed local politicians (mostly Republicans, but some Democrats as well) to gerrymander the hell out of our districts, our government is pretty much guaranteed to continue to be this kind of oppositional mess.

[prfsnl_gmr]

A question I have, though: What Constitutional rights are conferred on non-citizens? Because it seems like that's what we're doing with these, basically treating them as citizens. I recognize that non-citizens are afforded some degree of Constitutional rights, but haven't courts ruled on this kind of stuff before?

They do. They do not have as many protections as citizens, but they have some rights (especially once they are on U.S. soil). If I recall correctly, most of their rights relate to due process under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (I sold my constitutional law text books over a decade ago; so, I can't point you to any decisions without doing some research...and I don't have time for that today! )

Additionally, Congress cannot pass a law (and the President cannot issue a decree) in violation of the establishment clause regardless of whether the law or decree primarily affects non-citizens. In those circumstances, it isn't so much a matter of the non-citizens' rights so much as it is a matter of the limits placed on the federal government's power.

[Sarge]

And Republicans demonized and obstructed Obama and all liberals. We've been around this several times. Look at Mitch McConnell's pronouncements during Obama's presidency. You would be hard pressed to find a more vocal oppositional politician. In current politics, moderation is a flaw. And when we elect moderates, the Republican and Democratic parties force them into partisanship. There's a lot of pressure to toe the party line, and because we've decided we're married so closely to this two-party system, because we've allowed local politicians (mostly Republicans, but some Democrats as well) to gerrymander the hell out of our districts, our government is pretty much guaranteed to continue to be this kind of oppositional mess.

I agree that we've gotten to the point where we use hyperbolic terms to describe our opposition. It's probably why no one cared when we elected Pres. Obama, either.

I do think much of the opposition is there for a reason. I think there was a time where, by and large, much of our interests and ideology overlapped, but I don't know if that is the case anymore. There is a substantial divergence between the parties now, and common ground is becoming increasingly scarce.

Also, I'll see your Mitch McConnell and raise you a Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

They do. They do not have as many protections as citizens, but they have some rights (especially once they are on U.S. soil). If I recall correctly, most of their rights relate to due process under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (I sold my constitutional law text books over a decade ago; so, I can't point you to any decisions without doing some research...and I don't have time for that today! )

Additionally, Congress cannot pass a law (and the President cannot issue a decree) in violation of the establishment clause regardless of whether the law or decree primarily affects non-citizens. In those circumstances, it isn't so much a matter of the non-citizens' rights so much as it is a matter of the limits placed on the federal government's power.

Thanks, lawyer dude!

[marurun]

Every president backs legislation or pushes an agenda that is going to be imperfect and have potential for real or perceived harm to some groups of Americans. I do not think presidential decision-making is a zero-sum game, but everyone can't come out a winner. There's always someone who's going to be left saying, "why didn't you do anything for me?" The way history views presidential terms is probably the most healthy. When you look back on their legacy, what was the big picture? What were the big economic numbers? What does American look like from above? What issues were ongoing when the president came in and what did they look like when he left? It may seem cold or impersonal, but metrics, numbers, data, evidence... those are the only real way to evaluate a presidency. That doesn't mean you can't get some ideas of how things will go early on. There are signs (like we're seeing now with Trump) that indicate danger ahead and you have to make sure to stay wary and advocate for the things you care about. But barring extremes, you really have to take a president's term in totality to appreciate, or not appreciate, their legacy. I feel good, for the most part, about Obama's legacy, but I don't have the historical context that time will provide, so I can only prognosticate that history will probably view his presidency positively, but I cannot know for sure until we get "there", there being at least 8 years out, if not much longer. Things that look good in recent memory can look not so good through a longer lens, like Clinton's law-and-order push and its consequences for the black community, or the housing bubble. There's also Reagan's negative impacts on the long-term stability of the middle class and his massive role in the current economic inequity crisis. Even George W. Bush, who is no rose, may be helped by more distance from his presidency. Only time will tell.

[Ack]

Even George W. Bush, who is no rose, may be helped by more distance from his presidency. Only time will tell.

This is one thing that George W. Bush has also repeatedly commented on, that history is the ultimate judge as opposed to current opinion at the time. And there are examples of groundwork laid by previous presidents that he continued on with and groundwork he laid that Barack Obama continued on with which have had both positive and negative outcomes.

For an example of a positive outcome, George W. Bush increased aid to African nations, helping to bring stability to nations and regions that were destabilizing or sinking into failed state status. Barack Obama recognized the importance of Bush's work, continued it, and expounded upon it further, and while we can name organizations and events that have occurred in African nations during the terms of these two men, the truth is that many nations, peoples, and industries have flourished as a result of their action.

[CRTGAMER]

Is anyone aware of the history behind 8 U.S. Code § 1182? When was it written, who proposed it, what was the state of the nation, etc? I think it would be interesting to know historical context.

It is under the Homeland Security section; Homeland Security came into affect as consequence of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. Unsure of the author of the amendment though. Presidents Bush Jr and all Presidents forward have used it.

To be clear...the ruling hinged on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Basically, the government gave people something (e.g., visas, permanent resident status, the ability to travel to the U.S., etc.) and then took it away from them (i.e., "deprived" them of it) without notice or a hearing (i.e., "due process"). The federal government can't do that without violating the "due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment (i.e., the one applicable to the federal government). The decision also noted that the executive order raised issues of religious discrimination in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

This is where there was a conflict, the immigrants already issued a green card or visa should have been allowed thru. That part of it was cleared up after the first couple days the Immigration 90 day ban took affect. It is a country ban and not a religious ban.

marurun, the statute in question seems pretty clear. If they didn't want the President exercising this sort of power, they shouldn't have given it to him.

8 U.S. Code § 1182

(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

I'm not arguing that it's necessarily good policy, but the President has been granted this power, for better or for worse.

That's the money line, right there. The president is granted that power, but requires an evidentiary finding to support it. The cases against the EO are basically asserting that too many people, including US citizens with family abroad and businesses, are being negatively affected for this EO to be implemented without the justification the law requires. If the president has found that these aliens would be detrimental then he must make that case. That's what the 9th circuit was asking. The 9th circuit said "You have this authority, but you must also justify your actions with evidence. Show us some of the evidence so that we have good reason to suspend the stay until the courts can examine this more closely." For this the evidentiary bar would be lower than for a full review of the EO, and the administration couldn't even meet that lower bar. The 9th circuit would be remiss to allow the president to find harm without any evidence. Governance should not happen based on whim but based on data.

Too much spin, I think you are getting dizzy. Read the bold face sections that you edited out. I do not see anywhere in that law requiring the President to explain his actions; his determination alone.

Judges do not run the country as is in this case has happened. There are reports of a new Executive Order being written to over ride the existing ban. Just announced, the existing 90 day Immigration Ban will to be fought out in the 9th circuit entire judge panel which could take months. A who cares scenario since a new XO ban excluding issued green cards will be put out. If the new Immigration Ban gets challenged, the 9th judge will be in place to shore up a definite ruling.

• 1. Smart locking up the lower court like that exposing the huge sweep of liberal judges not following law plainly in the print. I smell Steve Bannon tactics all over this and possibly all the way back to the initial Immigrant Ban to break up the 9th district as well as cut down red state democrats in 2018. A bait to pull a liberal Seattle judge like that, a California judge was expected to bite. A reason there were a weak defense from lawyers representing not state but Federal level.
  
  2. Hannity stated it right last night, Congress needs to act immediately and either back this order or rescind it. O'Reilly stated it right as well; "A one party system is not healthy for the country." Too bad the Schumer and Pelosi gang are not listening and will be wiped out in 2018.

[prfsnl_gmr]

This is where there was a conflict, the immigrants already issued a green card or visa should have been allowed thru.

Correct.

That part of it was cleared up after the first couple days the Immigration 90 day ban took affect.

Thanks only to lawsuits filed on behalf of the states and those wrongfully prohibited from travelling to the U.S. The Trump administration took no action to clarify the order's application and, to my knowledge at least, took every action necessary to see that it was applied as broadly as possible. (I request that someone other than CRT correct me on this point if I am missing anything.)

It is a country ban and not a religious ban.

In the law, intentions matter...a lot...and Donald Trump stated repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. That his executive order made a clumsy attempt at religious neutrality - "It doesn't ban Muslims! It just bans everyone from a lot of majority-Muslim countries!" - is of no consequence in the face of evidence showing discriminatory intent.

Too much spin, I think you are getting dizzy....If the new Immigration Ban gets challenged, the 9th judge will be in shore a definite ruling. Smart locking up the lower court like that exposing the huge sweep of liberal judges not following law plainly in the print. I smell Steve Bannon tactics all over this and possibly all the way back to the initial Immigrant ban to break up the 9th district as well as cut down red state democrats in 2018.

Hannity stated it right last night, Congress needs to act immediately and either back this order or rescind it. O'Reilly stated it right as well; "A one party system is not healthy for the country." Too bad the Schumer and Pelosi gang are not listening and will be wiped out in 2018.

Call me crazy, but...I don't really trust someone who treats statements by Fox News commentators as gospel to let me know when there is too much spin. Also, your legal analysis is, for lack of a more polite term, flawed.

Your post-facto characterization of every action taken by the Trump administration as a master stroke by a team of genius puppet masters (rather than an out take from a public policy blooper reel) is really, really funny, however.

[Sarge]

In the law, intentions matter...a lot...and Donald Trump stated repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. That his executive order made a clumsy attempt at religious neutrality - "It doesn't ban Muslims! It just bans everyone from a lot of majority-Muslim countries!" - is of no consequence in the face of evidence showing discriminatory intent.

Regardless of what was stated during the campaign, all we can go on is what is in the executive order. So what is contained there is not, in any real sense, a "Muslim" ban. It may or may not be good policy, but that's what is going to end up sorted out in the court system.

[BogusMeatFactory]

In the law, intentions matter...a lot...and Donald Trump stated repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. That his executive order made a clumsy attempt at religious neutrality - "It doesn't ban Muslims! It just bans everyone from a lot of majority-Muslim countries!" - is of no consequence in the face of evidence showing discriminatory intent.

Regardless of what was stated during the campaign, all we can go on is what is in the executive order. So what is contained there is not, in any real sense, a "Muslim" ban. It may or may not be good policy, but that's what is going to end up sorted out in the court system.

But it is saying there will be priority treatment for Christians from those countries.