Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

The State of Washington included this angle in their brief - which I only know about because the DOJ orally argued against it in the video posted earlier. I tracked it down:

quote:

---

Sections 5(a)(b) of the Executive Order suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program in its entirety for 120 days and then, upon its resumption, direct the Secretary of State to prioritize refugees who claim religious-based persecution, "provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."
...
In a January 27, 2017, interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, President Trump confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees. A copy of the report of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
...
Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by
Defendants concerning their intent and application, are intended to disfavor Islam and favor Christianity.

---

That 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. The question of whether the 14th amendment grants non-citizens rights was answered as early as 1886 in the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins only 18 years later.In that case, the Supreme Court held that citizens of China, legally resident in the United States, " are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws." | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

​

Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

​

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that

​

all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

---

So when a current court makes a ruling today that green card holders or visa holders on vacation have at least a right to due process, that court is following firmly established precedent. That may make them idiots in Faith's eyes, but so what?It does not much matter what Jefferson or Hamilton may have thought about that result. The 14th amendment modified the constitution to have its current meaning. Let's recall that not all slaves were born in the US. The international slave trade ended in 1808, and at least some of the freed slaves were not born in the US, but were born on foreign continents. Surely, the constitution applied to those folks.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"Person" was used to include folks that were currently not citizens prior its enactment. African's in this country were considered foreigners. And because they could not establish their country of origin, they could not even establish foreign citizenship to the extent necessary to sue in federal court like other foreigners.So "person" does not mean citizen. I know you'd like that to be different. I've also cited some case law if that helps. African slaves, prior to becoming citizens, were foreigners. Why in the world you think that to help your argument is beyond me. What you seem to be saying is something that is a slightly less controversial. Namely that the 14th amendment was meant to apply only to African Americans. But even if that was the original intent, it has long since fallen by the wayside. Everybody including African Americans and White people can sue under the 14th Amendment. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Leaving aside the 14th amendment for the moment, the 5th also has a due process clause: " nor shall any person be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And it is easy enough to find out who James Madison --- who wrote the Bill of Rights --- thought it that it covered: And so a little before that he writes: Now, doesn't that exactly cover the case of the green card holders? Is there some reason you feel that this does not settle the issue?(Link to the text.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I believe that your comments on Marxism were already covered by my previous post.

quote:

---

What about someone who believes that the laws of their god super-cede all laws made by man?

---

There are already people living in America making such claims. Naturally they can get in trouble when they disobey laws they don't like. But I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for simply believing it.

quote:

---

Could Trump claim that it is valid to refuse such a person entry to the U.S. as they would not accept the rule of U.S. law?

---

My view is that they should be asked if they would follow the law. If they refuse there is a valid reason to deny them entry that doesn't rely on discrimination. But then again, since it applies to some Christians (or more commonly "Christians") in a practical situation the question would never arise in those cases and the Religious Right would be complaining about it if entry were denied even with good reason.

quote:

---

Is it always easy to understand?

---

The basic distinction between belief and action ought to be. If you can't make that distinction then you have a serious problem.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

No National Security PurposeEven people who might be expected to support Trump are worried. Yoo's former colleague Jack Goldsmith goes further and suggests that Trump is trying to lose the court cases. Does Trump want to Lose

Federal law gives the President the right to determine if there are national security issues involved; others' opinions are not included.

The phrase, "whilst they actually conform to it" excludes lawbreakers, which includes people who are breaking the law to be here in the first place. The word "obedience" is mentioned again later too.Madison's comments also are not referring to people who are not within the jurisdiction of the US. So if they enter illegally or are outside, the Constitution does not apply to them.Also, the rights of noncitizens are not equivalent to those of citizens.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The pertinence of any of this should be recovered. The travel ban refers to noncitizen foreigners who are not in the country.If there are already rights granted for anyone to be in the country, from a green card to a visa or whatever, I would assume the travel ban would not apply to them.

quote:

---

Federal law gives the President the right to determine if there are national security issues involved; others' opinions are not included.

---

Even if it were true that views of others - or the facts - have no legal force - there is nothing that prevents people from expressing those views. And in fact Freedom of Speech mandates that they do have the right to express those views.Whether you are right, however, is a matter for the courts and I think you will find that they have the sense to baulk at the complete deference to the President that you demand.

quote:

---

If there are already rights granted for anyone to be in the country, from a green card to a visa or whatever, I would assume the travel ban would not apply to them.

---

We already know that the order affected people with visas when they arrived in the country. We also know that the Trump administration tried to apply it to Green Card holders arriving in the country. We also know that tens of thousands of visas have been revoked under this order.Isn't it way past time time that you did less assuming and more paying attention to the discussion here ?

That's a lot of semantic word twisting. The definition of a citizen now includes anyone born within the country, as it should. The way slaves were "foreigners" is not the same as the way Iraqi nationals are foreigners or aliens who have crossed our borders illegally.The question is whether the amendment was intended to apply to anyone without a legal right to be here.

The point -- obviously -- was that their opinions were treated as legally affecting Trump's action.

Then I'll wait and see how the legality of revoking the visas and the green cards plays out. No point in taking the opinion of anyone here as the truth.

And I specifically asked you "doesn't that exactly cover the case of the green card holders?"A green card holder is not some sort of crook. That's a bizarre notion. Do you suppose it would be legal for the government to seize your property without due process while you were on vacation in Canada? And then when you get back they say "the Fifth Amendment didn't protect Faith while she was out of the country"? Can you imagine how loud a judge would laugh at that? True, they don't get to vote. However, James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, Faith, said that the Constitution offers equal protection to foreigners.