How will this version get them around the legal problems if the first one?
A few tweaks wonât make this turd constitutional. What a waste of time and effort.
It wonât. They are fucking idiots.
Unless we suffer a horrendous attack by a herd of moose lamb terrorists from all seven of the listed countries who then tell Jack Bauer that the second wave is about to be launched as soon as they get their plane tickets heâs 0 for 3 on the other reasons the 9th Circuit shot down the alpha version of the EO.
This one might squeak through a court, because thereâs huge discretion in granting visas. But I wouldnât necessarily bet on it. And, of course, all the leaks around it suggest it might just be for show.
The fundamental problem is that there is no evidence that current vetting procedures are inadequate. If you find holes in the procedures and want to tighten it, thatâs fine, but focusing on countries rather than individuals is still very problematic. You are keeping out, for example, Iranian doctors and scientists while letting in potential terrorists from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Including Iran in the ban never made sense from the beginning. There are certainly problems with the government there, but the people especially the educated ones who come here are very pro-Western and pro-American.
My thought exactly, allowing currently approved people in says that the ~seven-level ~four-year review process in place is adequate, so the ban is still just a ban, what idiots.
A serious question deserves a serious answer: it gets around some of the issues, but not all.
First, it gets around the 5th amendment issues having to do with depriving people whoâve already been studying or working here, and would be locked out from finishing their degrees or getting back home, since it doesnât apply to current visa holders. However, if those current visa holders have problems renewing their visas, this issue could come up again. This is actually a major defeat for Trump, and a big victory for us.
It doesnât get around 8 US code 1152âs prohibition against discriminating against immigrants based on national origin or country of residence. Trump likes to cite 8 US code 1182, giving the President lots of authority over immigration, but 1152 is more specific and was passed later, and so probably has precedence.
It doesnât get around the 1st amendment issues if the ban is applied to Muslim immigrants but not Christian immigrants, from the âgang of 7â.
And of course, though not a legal issue, Trumpâs focus on immigration makes the US look like a nation of frightened rubes.
Happy NotMyPresident DayâŚ
@ dannydorkoâTrump failed to mention that they could also save 15% on their car insurance by switching to Geico. What a loser!
Dammit, why donât they accept American Express?
As I understand it (Iâm an attorney, but not an immigration attorney or authority on the subject) from the Amicus Brief filed on behalf of multiple corporations in the WA/MN case in Seattle, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination based upon nationality. If that is correct, a court does not have to even get to any constitutional issues of due process or religious discrimination. The EO would violate a valid Act of Congress.
The administration can argue plenary powers all they want, 16 years after Sept 11, without a single incident of terror on American soil from immigrants from any of the seven proscribed countries does not an emergency make.
Where Congress has enacted an immigration scheme to manage who can immigrate from what countries, the POTUS cannot simply void that scheme and visas issues lawfully pursuant to that scheme.
So again, if the Amicus are correct on the law, no EO that discriminates on the basis on nationality can be valid. Congress can amend or replace the Immigration Act to permit discrimination based upon nationality, but thatâs a separate issue.
Now after a 90 day wait they say extreme vetting will be in place but at the same time they are saying vetting is impossible because none of the countries has a government that can be trusted. So what is 90 days going to buy?
Extreme vetting will probably turn out to be water boarding.
Remember that his plan was to âwin easilyâ without changing the text as he has already done actuĂĄlly! Did he get âtired of winningâ so soon?!
Forced to instead make these concessions which itself is quite a humiliation, heâll be utterly apoplectic if he STILL canât âwin easily!â
You mean the ones who werenât subjected to âextreme vetting?â