State Dept. reverses visa revocations

Started by SGOS, February 04, 2017, 02:50:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SGOS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-reverses-visa-revocations-allows-banned-travelers-to-enter-us/2017/02/04/0ab5880a-eaee-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.a9f4d93c6816

QuoteThe State Department says previously banned travelers will be allowed to enter the United States after a federal judge in Washington state on Friday temporarily blocked enforcement of President Trump’s controversial immigration ban.

“We have reversed the provisional revocation of visas under” Trump’s executive order, a State Department spokesman said Saturday. “Those individuals with visas that were not physically canceled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid.”

Department of Homeland Security personnel “will resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy and procedure.”

Immigrant advocates said they were encouraging travelers from the affected countries to get on planes as soon as possible, since the Trump administration has said it plans to appeal the stay on the travel ban.

Well, that was quick.  Government has been busy lately.

Hydra009

Quote from: El Presidente Naranja“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump said in a Saturday morning tweet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEbG3EkRn0

Shiranu

Does the judge actually have the authority to make the decision at a national level?
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

SGOS

Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 04:32:58 PM
Does the judge actually have the authority to make the decision at a national level?
Apparently, since the State Department is abiding by it.  But according to the article, it's looks like it will be settled in a higher court, and probably quite soon.

fencerider

someone says it will go to ninth circuit of appeals where it will obviously be upheld. If Trump appeals to the Supreme Court while there are 8 judges there will be a tie. That would throw it back to the ninth circuit where it will receive a final judgement against Trump.

That would be good for me if that is correct. Somebody gotta put a block on the bigotted zenophobe.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Atheon

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

Hydra009

The background of this "so-called judge" (so called by everybody but Trump) is a very interesting read.  Nominated by Dubya, praised by both parties (a rarity these days), no one opposed his confirmation.  I repeat, no one opposed his confirmation.  He sounds like a fair and wise judge unfairly maligned by President Temper-tantrum because things didn't go his way.

Cavebear

The problem is that Trump (and friends) simply CANNOT make even a simple statement without inserting an insult.  I'm not sure how to differentiate "second nature' and "automatic", but Trumps can't bring himself to say "I disagree with the judge". He HAS to say "I disagree with the 'so-called' judge".

There are leaders and there are bullies.  Trump is neither.  He's an ass.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 04:32:58 PM
Does the judge actually have the authority to make the decision at a national level?

I've been trying to find out why the court can rule against this particular Trump order.  Structurally, it can't rule against a Trump order because it deems the executive order in poor judgment.  I think the court only deals with one thing, constitutionality, which covers a lot of things, including presidential authority and limits.  If I were going to bet, I'm guessing this court believes this particular order is beyond the limits of presidential authority, and must be passed by Congress.

Checks and balances must have someone to decide which executive orders fall within presidential authority.  Without such a mechanism, the president would be a dictator.  When you stop and consider that almost half of the voters are currently supporting Bush, and want him to have this authority, regardless of how the governmental infrastructure is set up, you can get a chilling feel for how fragile democracy is.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on February 05, 2017, 06:35:44 AM
I've been trying to find out why the court can rule against this particular Trump order.  Structurally, it can't rule against a Trump order because it deems the executive order in poor judgment.  I think the court only deals with one thing, constitutionality, which covers a lot of things, including presidential authority and limits.  If I were going to bet, I'm guessing this court believes this particular order is beyond the limits of presidential authority, and must be passed by Congress.

Checks and balances must have someone to decide which executive orders fall within presidential authority.  Without such a mechanism, the president would be a dictator.  When you stop and consider that almost half of the voters are currently supporting Bush, and want him to have this authority, regardless of how the governmental infrastructure is set up, you can get a chilling feel for how fragile democracy is.

The courts can go further and declare that the Presidential orders violate the constitutional ban on favoring one religion over another or none.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 08:26:49 AM
The courts can go further and declare that the Presidential orders violate the constitutional ban on favoring one religion over another or none.

OK, that could be an area of constitutional conflict.  I hadn't considered that.

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on February 05, 2017, 08:44:42 AM
OK, that could be an area of constitutional conflict.  I hadn't considered that.

Easy peasy ... ban all immigrants and all travelers to the US.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: SGOS on February 05, 2017, 06:35:44 AM
I've been trying to find out why the court can rule against this particular Trump order.  Structurally, it can't rule against a Trump order because it deems the executive order in poor judgment.  I think the court only deals with one thing, constitutionality, which covers a lot of things, including presidential authority and limits.  If I were going to bet, I'm guessing this court believes this particular order is beyond the limits of presidential authority, and must be passed by Congress.

Checks and balances must have someone to decide which executive orders fall within presidential authority.  Without such a mechanism, the president would be a dictator.  When you stop and consider that almost half of the voters are currently supporting Bush, and want him to have this authority, regardless of how the governmental infrastructure is set up, you can get a chilling feel for how fragile democracy is.

The lawyers for Washington state that brought the suite argued that,

QuoteThe state's lawyers argued that it is likely to ultimately prevail in this case because the executive order violates the Constitution and federal law.

Among the offended legal principles, they contend, are the Equal Protection Clause; the Establishment Clause; Due Process; and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Judge issued a temporary injunction that suspended the order until the matter can be argued in full.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

Baruch

People here seem to ... clickbait.  They don't realize how complicated, contradictory and stutter stepping US law is.  There is an opinion for every judge, all unequal ... and we have many judges, on many levels.  Job security.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 09:24:16 AM
People here seem to ... clickbait.  They don't realize how complicated, contradictory and stutter stepping US law is.  There is an opinion for every judge, all unequal ... and we have many judges, on many levels.  Job security.

Accusing members here of being so stupid as to be "clickbait" is rather harsh...  We understand that US law can be complicated and contradictory at times.  Which is why when the "so called" President Trump (sarcasm intended) insults the judiciary and legislature, SOME of us get just a bit annoyed. 

It reminds me of Andrew Jackson saying "[i]the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate[/i].  In other words, enforce it if you can.  That is not the way the government should work.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!