Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

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

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?

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

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.

Sorry to bore you...The stay specifically/explicitly talks about "removing" the person. I'm not sure if that is trying to cover detainment or not, but if not then you could go along with the executive order and admit people on a cases by case basis after you detain and interview them. That's what happened to the one petitioner, and then after he got in he praised America.If the stay is percieved by some to mean don't even do that, and if some authorities have said no way to that in particular, then it could be spun into them being "unwilling to the following the ruling" even though they weren't actually breaking the ruling.How many people with the legal right to be here have been removed since the stay? I suppose if authorities are still doing that under the direction of the President then that would technically be him breaking the law.Is that what you were going for?...Also from the source of your quote: Did they get it figured out, or are the wrong people still being removed or detained?

Nobody is saying "do whatever it likes", but I don't think we have the sovereignty to grant our Constitutional rights to people in other countries. That doesn't necessitate what we do decide to do in treating people here, but the question was one of legal obligation.Apparently a Green Card does allow you full Constitutional rights; I wonder if instead of using the word "aliens" twice, if the Executive Order simply used "refugees", if that would change the perceived Constitutionality of the Order. That's really the only legal problem I see with it, is that by using the term aliens it is including Green Card holders who have rights against what it orders. I'm beginning to think that it is part of a longer game plan. With the talks of Trump's phone calls to Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, and their reported support of safe zones for refugees in the Middle East, this could actually turn out to be a better thing for refugees, and the region, in general.Setting up areas "over there" where the refugees can go and be safe and start getting jobs to rebuild their own country will do a lot more for them, and us, than moving them across the globe and putting them on aid.I suppose we'll have to wait and see. I'm not buying it. What would be the crime that he committed? Signing a flawed Executive Order? Is that illegal?

It's, like, his first week... let him get some OJT in You don't know how thought out it is, but I agree that it was poorly implemented. And the countries were picked beforehand so that ridicule isn't on Trump.If we can get Safe Zones set up in the Middle East, supported by other countries, and start getting the refugees to work rebuilding their own country, then don't you think that would be better than dispersing them across the globe? Both for them and their region?

I wasn't suggesting that, I was just sayin'. Is signing an Executive Order that ends up being determined to be unconstitutional illegal?

The point about lacking sovereignty was just part of an aside on our Constitutional obligation, in general, and had nothing to do with the dispute involving people in the U.S. I alluded to that here in (now) bold: Geez, grant me a little charity here, you really think I would talk about foreign sovereignty in regards to something here on our soil? What if it didn't use the term "aliens" and instead just spoke of refugees? What makes that seem so likely? Seems like a pretty tough case to make.

Fine, have a nice day.

Let me know when you've got some evidence... or at least something more than coincidence.Why would Obama limit the countries that he picked to put on that list to those that Trump didn't have business interests in? Meh, go ahead and be curious all you want. Got any facts? The conflicts in their regions. Good to know that their holier-than-thou attitude was pure hypocrisy.

This is super nitpicky, but the 14th isn't all that clear. It refers to what the individual states must do; if you're under a state's jurisdiction, then that state must treat you this way. It wasn't the 14th alone, but in combination with the 5th, that the courts used to say that it applies to the federal government as well. I think, that's my understanding of it.

That's impossible. The Citizenship Clause was written so that persons who weren't technically citizens would be citizens. That would never work if it was not intended to apply to non-citizens.

Don't forget, though, that some of the rights in the Constitution are not granted by the Constitution, itself, but are merely identified as natural rights that all people have, regardless, and that the government cannot take away.In that sense, they would certainly apply to non-citizens. Also some the native americans who were here that weren't slaves nor citizens. There's the part about "jurisdiction" where if you happened to be in a State's area then technically you were a citizen even if you weren't really to begin with. And free speech, and arming yourself, and assembly, etc. Those are natural rights that every human has regardless of any constitution existing or not. The original intent was to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights.The 14th amendment was passed right after the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Citizenship Clause was intended to mirror citizenship rules of that Act directly into the Constitution. The formal title of the Act was "An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication"."All persons in the US" is a pretty clear statement of intention.The only grey area I see, and is what I was getting at earlier, is with people who are subject to a foreign power. I'm not sure how the rules work when there's another government involved.