Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday January 30 2017, @11:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-separation-of-powers dept.

From the what-separation-of-powers department:

The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:

The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.

The NY Post adds:

The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16AM

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16AM (#460954)

    ok, now prove that 100% of the immigrants from country X will do us harm.

    I'll wait....

    if you have a list of individuals, FINE.

    but that is NOT what is going on, here.

    that's the issue. devil is in the details, which you seem to enjoy ignoring.

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:24AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:24AM (#460962) Homepage Journal

    You're trying to shift the argument. This argument is whether Trump's order is legal and whether the judges' orders should be obeyed.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:25AM

      by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:25AM (#461042)

      Argument hasn't shifted, the president must act on the belief that they will cause harm. Trump's order is legally questionable based on mildly conflicting sections of 1182 and the Constitution, thus it is up to the judiciary to sort out. The POTUS can not act solely on personal opinion, there must be a reason that matches up with the law. In this case it is quite a fuzzy area.

      --
      ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:59AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:59AM (#461149) Homepage Journal

        the belief that they will cause harm

        can not act solely on personal opinion

        Those two statements do not jive. Beliefs are personal opinions and it is explicitly specified that this is the criteria for any such action to be taken.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:20PM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:20PM (#461344)

          As the POTUS the "belief" must be backed by some sort of evidence, he can't just wake up and ban people from the UK because a british comedian made fun of him. Probably part of why such an order is subject to judicial oversight, to keep such crazy actions like I made up from being enacted.

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM (#460980) Journal

    No proof needed. Printed on every visa, printed on every application for an entry, the US has a statement that you may be denied entry for any reason. It's written so broadly, you may even be denied entry for no reason. Basically, "We'll welcome you if we feel like welcoming you."

    • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33AM

      by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33AM (#461005) Journal

      As with others, you are confusing a VISA with USCIS form I-551 (‘green card’); a permanent resident has to be given notice (quoting from the law) “The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status […]”

      As you are too lazy to at least look up the law but feel entitled to voice an opinion, I will not tell you what the name of the law is. (Hint: LOOK IT UP, READ IT AND THEN VOICE YOUR OPINION)

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:39AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:39AM (#461010) Journal

        Those persons held out as poster children to prove how unjust Trump is have had visas or entry permits. I've not yet seen a documented case of a green card holder being denied permission to enter the country.

        Looking at your own quote - it's pretty obvious that the green card can be revoked. Allow me to quote your quote:

        “The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status […]”

        "conditional permenent resident"

        Interesting that. You attempt to use legal weasel words to imply some guarantee to the holder of the card? Good luck with that.

        • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01AM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01AM (#461027)

          Of course it is conditional, otherwise it would be called citizenship. However, they can't be deported for any reason that doesn't violate US law. Being Muslim is protected by the 1st amendment.

          You call the Constitution and laws of the US "legal weasel words"? C'mon Runaway, where is your reason? Are you so easily tripped up by emotional reactions?

          I only got here by searching for jelizondo's reference to his own post somewhere in the thread, he was replying to TMB and got tired of repeating himself. The conservative arguments are crumbling as evidenced by the increase in ad hominem attacks. Why no more quoting of the law?

          All that said, of COURSE some people should be denied entry!!! And 1182 clearly defines the terms. You'd think the all knowing NSA could provide some detailed evidence on who to admit and who to deny. Again, based on evidence and not irrational fear.

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:15AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:15AM (#461130) Journal

            "legal weasel words" was used in reference to a very specific quote, printed onto the green cards, that you mentioned yourself. The government has left itself an out, big enough to drive an entire brigade of Abrams tanks through. Legal weasel words, that mean, you've been promised nothing, and we can change our minds at any time, for any reason, with or without explanation.

            It all boils down to the fact that green card holders have no more rights than a visa holder.

            • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:51AM

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:51AM (#461143) Journal

              It all boils down to the fact that green card holders have no more rights than a visa holder.

              Which is farcical, why have two different documents if they are functionally identical? Why do foreigners jump through hoops (marriages of convenience etc) to get a green card if a visa is just as good? Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry. I think you are talking shit again. Besides, I can already see a significant difference just from the quotes in this thread: Visa holders can be denied at any time. Green card holders (AKA "legal permanent residents") must be given written notice - that's a huge difference. It means a green card holder can show up at the airport and (as long as they haven't received their written notice) be confident they will be admitted. Not so for visa holders.

              However Trump has made the distinction less clear in his hasty, ill-considered, poorly-implemented, irrational and bigoted decision.

              Oh, as for green card holders not being affected? Green card and visa holders were being blocked from boarding US-bound flights within hours of Donald Trump issuing an executive order [independent.co.uk]

              Green card holders were originally part of the ban and many were turned away at the airports. The White house have apparently U-turned on that after about a day of chaos, (although they were somewhat confused about it: Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then {minutes} later said "of course" it affects green card holders [cnn.com] ). No Green card holders have been turned away since then, but green card holders from the 7 countries are likely to be subjected to extra "discretionary" scrutiny at the airport. Whether that involves a few extra background checks or a rigorous anal probing I don't know, but I do know if it was me I'd be very nervous about passing through a US airport.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:40PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:40PM (#461218) Journal

                I'm losing so badly here, I'm switching sides. I'm going to start arguing Bill Clinton's side of this thing. I'm tired of Trumping here.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0 [youtube.com]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:17PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:17PM (#461308)

                  Lol I was expecting something better. Podium rhetoric is not the best stuff to compare, gotta compare the actions. No one here is against immigration control as a thing, just the manner in which we go about it. You conservatives really need to stop acting like liberals hate everything you stand for, because most of the time there is middle ground to be had.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:25PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:25PM (#461434)

                  But for you there are no sides, there is only "Runaway". You are like Trump in that regard, an ego so big and so unselfconscious that there is no room for anything else, let alone "sides".

        • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:08AM

          by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:08AM (#461035) Journal

          Oh, gee! I’m quoting CNN [cnn.com] for you, as probably it is a trusted source in your view: “Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security initially interpreted Trump's order to not apply to green card holders from the seven banned countries. Trump White House overruled that reading, however, meaning those green card holders were initially barred.” (I bolded the relevant phrases.)

          Can an executive order send all those people out of the U.S.? Of course! But with due process of law, not just throw them out like they were illegally entering the country. Which is why they backtracked, quoting from the same source: " 'This is our message to them: get on a plane. Come back to the US. You will be subject to secondary screening, but everything else will be normal,' the Homeland Security official told CNN. A White House official said Sunday more than 170 green card holders had been waived in as of 3 p.m.”

          And not weasel words, just quoting the FUCKING LAW which you don't appear to hold dear. YES, they can be deported BUT following the law. No explanation needed, just an administrative resolution telling them to get the hell out. Yes, they can appeal the deportation order. And yes, they can be denied on appeal. But according to the law. Anyone not a citizen is a 'conditional resident' meaning they can be thrown out, even if they are married to a citizen; but they have a larger legal protection.

          Visa holders are a quite different case, they can be denied entry on just not looking good enough to the agent at the airport and no appeal is available.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:19AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:19AM (#461131) Journal

            Bottom line: The president has the legal authority to shut down immigration, at this point in time. You can appeal, which gains you a few weeks or months in detention, while waiting for your appeal to go through. And at the end of the process, if you haven't performed enough deviant sex acts for the right people, out you go.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:40PM (#461778)

              Real bottom line: the president issue an illegal order, has had to fire people that tell him it is illegal, four judges ruled it is illegal, annnd to top it off green card holders don't quite fit into "immigration" like you're imagining.

              Deviant sex acts? Seems like the massive push back against this stupid order is pushing your personal limits of criticism. The strong man act doesn't work so well anymore, too many people are educated enough that you can't just intimidate them with strong phrases like "Bottom line".

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 02 2017, @01:39AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 02 2017, @01:39AM (#461857) Journal

                On the contrary, the push back is against the liberals, who want to redefine common words, so that they can confuse issues.

                You don't get to decide that the United States isn't the United States anymore, just because you have been brainwashed into thinking that you are a "citizen of the world". Nations and nationalism are still a thing.

                Trump has issued no illegal orders. He has acted within his legal authorities. You don't like that, so you want to change definitions. Doesn't work, Bubba.

        • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:31PM

          by DutchUncle (5370) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:31PM (#461210)

          This is about changing an INDIVIDUAL's status after due process, just like suspending a driver's license. It is not about blanket changes.