Breaking: Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump's immigration order

This is from the 1952 Act and I posted the link in another post. I also copy pasted the entire 1952 act text into a word document and I searched for the word detrimental and what I found is proof positive that what you have stated above is NOT CORRECT. See the paragraph I lit up is red? That says the the person can be deported which means the person is already here. It does not say as you say that entry can be denied.
Here is the link again you read it and find and post where it says as you say that the POTUS can deny entry on this basis. http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/McCarran_52.html

 

His constitutional and statutory prerogative in the matter. You may not agree with him, but it is HIS prerogative not yours. Do you get the same security briefings as he and his staff? Has this court received those intelligence briefings before they have attempted to second guess him on matters of national security?

 

No. It's still the responsibility of the president. His approach was found to be unacceptable. He can tweet more "wah wah wah's" or find a way to do his job. He could find a way that is legal and sensible or he can try to protect his ego and image over all else. He already tweeted "SEE YOU IN COURT..." So, the selfish and low road it is.

Personally, I think the president's job to protect the United States is one to protect the _institution_ that is the United States. Not necessarily to protect the safety of some of its people. Looking at it this way, the terrorist yahoo's are insignificant and will not bring down the u.s. government. Just my own view.

It seems like the gun lovers are the ones most fearful of these imagrants. Seems ironic.

 

None that I've seen cited.The president has every prerogative when it comes to establishing immigration policy.

 

Gun owners do not want to kill immigrants, they're just prepared to. It beats the other option.

The courts removed both the power and the responsibility of the President to set immigration policy as he deems necessary.

 

Nah, the court did not even consider the constitutionality of the EO, that's a totally separate legal process that can take months. The hearings were not on merits, the court was deciding whether the EO should be in effect during these months until the constitutionality of the EO is confirmed or overturned.

 

Fully agreed.

The court acted predictably and errantly. The plaintiffs case will unravel as the facts emerge and the lower courts in question will come off as political bodies making them subject to reform.

Robart and the 9th appellate court has handed Trump a rather large cudgel for change. And, if a single violent act is committed by any person who would have been barred from entry, but entered while the TRO was in effect, then the court system will own that. The President with Congress will use that as the anvil to strike the gifted cudgel forcing change in the federal court system.

Watch it unfold.

Someone's playing 3d chess.

Oh, and one more thing. Verbal orders have been issued to halt or slow walk all future Visa requests, no EO really nessary. The EO was just a shiny object to lure liberal judges and the media.

Cheers

 

Whoa there gun slinger. I was just pointing out that gun lovers seem to have have more fear. I didn't say they wanted to kill anyone. It's clear where your mindset is. When the fanciest tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails. If it's a gun, the whole world looks like targets.

Your logic is flawed when you say the court removed the president's power and responsibility. They found this approach to be unacceptable. You seem to be suggesting that this was his only option. The president's power should be kept in check. It is fundamental to our government and its checks and balances. Our forefathers were brilliant that way.

 

I still don't get why liberals are so eager to cram as many Mooslims into the country as possible. They'll root against ANY restrictions on immigration from terrorist hot spots.

 

Flights of fancy.

 

Eh?...

 

Being prepared is a virtue, friend.

His approach is now dictated by the courts. How does the court like this one? No?

 

We've got the same sort of lefty pinko traitors here in Britain, these 3 tried to block Brexit last year-

 

But let's talk about this regardless:

Gun Registry: Okay
Muslim Registry: No dice.

Why....not? No, seriously and they better not give me the State/Church separation argument(First Amendment.) It's not a regulation or infringement on the Church, nor of individual rights. If the registry is a violation, then Social Security numbers are a violation lol.

 

the supreme court will overrule it, the circuit court is corrupt with pro immigration free trade people who aren't patriotic to America.

they are sycophants for the rich who use immigrants for cheap labor, it has nothing to do with national security but selling out Americans future of gainful employment.

 

Breaking: Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump's immigration order

You guys tired of "winning" yet? lol

 

The court ruled that the President does not have unchecked power with this EO, even though his lawyer said that the order was un-reviewable. That's a Constitutional issue. Checks and balances, just as I said.

 

Lol, we're talking Donald Trump here, the master of incompetence. But if it is as you say and he has special, secret knowledge of threats from these countries then his legal team can brief that in court and prove that he's in keeping with the law. From everything that's been disclosed about the case so far, they didn't do that, and so he failed. Either those countries really are a threat and Trump and his braintrust don't know how to prove that to anyone, or he's got no legal standing.

Read the ruling yourself, it's very clear. The government claims the president's action on this is "unreviewable," and the court points out that (1) there is no precedent for such a claim and (2) the very notion itself is contrary to Constitutional checks and balances. Trump and his bizarre band of authoritarians need to stop trying to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

 

That the executive branch does not have an absolute power is hardly debatable. As far as the constitutionality of the EO is concerned the court was not charged with addressing it and it did not. It will take months and a separate court process to figure out and the only thing they were considering is whether the EO stands or is stayed while the case on merits makes it though the legal system. They chose to go with suspending the EO... Checks in balances indeed as you say, but not on constitutionality merits just yet.

 

Judges telling the executive branch that it's acting illegally does not abrogate the executive branch from its responsibility. If anything it just highlights how incompetent the Chief Executive is - if he weren't such a buffoon he would be able to impose immigration restrictions legally and with bipartisan support.

Hey, remember when Trump said he was going to "unify" the country? I mean, I knew he was lying, but did anyone believe him?

 

The President must run his immigration policy by the courts now. They hold the final decision. They have removed the power and the responsibility of the final decision from the president and now hold final say.

 

Of course they didn't. His trolls voted for him because they hated America and wanted to blow it up. Thank god the courts had the one Kryptonite in their pockets that could defeat them....

Reading.

 

So the President now has to get his foreign policy decisions approve by the court and the court's authority supersedes that of the President? Are you serious? We can only go to war if the court approves from now on? And no courts do not get such sercurity breifings because they do NOT supercede the president's judgement and the issue before the court is NOT the policy as much as they are trying to make it so they can prevent the President from carrying out is Constitutional mandate.

They can review it for legality and constitutionality NOT for the wisdom of the the POLICY in their view. No evidence was present nor an opinion rendered that what he ordered was illegal or that he does not have the constitutional authority, the court is overstepping it's bounds and trying to second guess his authority as to the policy.

 

And here is where you are DEAD WRONG.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.

You were dead before you even made your argument because the permission the president has comes from right here given to him by Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

What your activist judges did is ignore the law that gives the president that authority and pretended they can question his motives or reasons as if that is even their job. Their job is the law and the law states the president has the power. NOT federal judges to rely on their own personal beliefs to judge his motivations on what he does with that power.

 

Its not in the constitution as far as the Federal government goes.

- - - Updated - - -

Pray tell me what in it was unconstitutional