Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

"Whatever is right in response to the stay" is to obey it, not to behave like the tinpot dictator of a banana republic.

(sorry - intended to reply to Faith. Message 42 )The important question - which applies equally to both cases - is whether a judge may issue an injunction which (temporarily, at least) prevents an Executive Order being carried out.There is no need to review their decisions - that is for the higher courts.So it comes down to the authority of judges. Both judges believe that they have that power. If you disagree then perhaps you should offer a bit more than your personal opinion - given that judges ought to know the law rather better than you.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Pardon my ignorance: What stay are you talking about and how is Trump breaking the law?

The court is wrong, eh? Well thank you Faith. Good to know that you are also a legal scholar among your many other accolades. Like being an expert on genetics, biology, geology, and so forth.Well, at least now we know that all of Obama's executive actions were fully legal and that those terrible judges who filed injunctions against them were clearly wrong. Appreciate you clarifying that for us.

http://thehill.com/...locks-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide

Here's the full text of the ruling:Trump Immigration Ban: Transcript of Judge Ruling Against It | Fortune

Ah, okay, that ruling. It says that people who are already here and have valid documentation shouldn't be removed.How is Trump breaking that?

In my view it is going too far to say that Trump has definitely broken the law, but obviously the judge thinks it is highly likely that deporting these people on arrival, as Trump intended would have broken the law.You don't even have to read most of the decision: The point of the ruling is that Trump cannot arbitrarily order that people who have been granted the right to enter the country be forbidden. Due process must be followed.

'Cos they're still doing it.Customs agents ignore judge, enforce Trump’s travel ban: ACLU

Well, you have a tabloid from yesterday saying that somebody said that there are reports that they are still doing it...

Some non-tabloids:Hidden Danger Of Trump Immigration Orders: Dismissal Of Court OrdersU.S. judges limit Trump immigration order; some officials ignore rulings | ReutersBorder agents defy courts on Trump travel ban, congressmen and lawyers say | US immigration | The GuardianDepartment of Homeland Security vows to enforce Donald Trump's travel bans, despite court order | The Independent | The IndependentEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I would agree that if you have the legal documentation to be here, say a Green Card, but are still technically an alien, then the Executive Order would allow you to be forbidden to enter upon arrival, and, that would be unfair because you technically should be allowed due process.What I don't know is: 1) Does the Green Card actually give full Constitutional protection of due process to aliens? and 2) Can an Executive Order legally override that for aliens?If the answers are yes and no, respectively, then it looks to me like Trump's Executive Order on this matter is unconstitutional as written.Perhaps if the two uses of the word "alien" were replaced with "refugee", then it would be Constitutional. But as written, since Green Card holders are technically still aliens, it reads as if they could be barred from entering upon arrival when, legally, I think they should at least be given due process before being barred.On the other hand, later in the Order it does allow for people to enter on a case-by-case basis, so it's not like there is no way in at all.

Are those links supposed to be showing Trump breaking the law?Because those are opinions of people who think that since DHS issued a statement saying that they will still execute the order that therefore they are violating the stay that the judge issued.

* sigh *

Nice. By the way, Happy Korematsu's Birthday!!