4th Circuit appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump's travel ban

[Aardvark154]

The only solution is to make it a felony to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. That will resolve the problem overnight.

There are a number of ways to make certain that everyone working in the U.S.A. has the right to be working in the United States. I have absolutely no problem with criminal penalties, frankly it doesn't even have to be a felony, the vast, vast, majority of people are not going to be imprisoned for almost a year just to knowingly hire someone without the right to work in the U.S.

As an example: if you are the foreign national fiancé(e) or spouse of a U.S. Citizen you (more accurately your spouse) have to pay to obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to work in the U.S. before your application for Permanent Resident Alien Status (Green Card) is approved (which again you pay for). I see no problem in penalizing those who choose to employ those without the right to work.

This is not to say that many stories are not quite sad, but a) you can't have everyone in the world come to the U.S. or for that matter any other developed country. b) try as a Canadian or American saying I really love the Alps I think I just stay in Bavaria, the Tyrol or Switzerland forever, without permission.

 

[fuji]

There are a number of ways to make certain that everyone working in the U.S.A. has the right to be working in the United States. I have absolutely no problem with criminal penalties, frankly it doesn't even have to be a felony, the vast, vast, majority of people are not going to be imprisoned for almost a year just to knowingly hire someone without the right to work in the U.S.

As an example: if you are the foreign national fiancé(e) or spouse of a U.S. Citizen you (more accurately your spouse) have to pay to obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to work in the U.S. before your application for Permanent Resident Alien Status (Green Card) is approved (which again you pay for). I see no problem in penalizing those who choose to employ those without the right to work.

This is not to say that many stories are not quite sad, but a) you can't have everyone in the world come to the U.S. or for that matter any other developed country. b) try as a Canadian or American saying I really love the Alps I think I just stay in Bavaria, the Tyrol or Switzerland forever, without permission.

I have no issue with that, but your party does and your president is one of the perpetrators.

There are two fair outcomes:

1. A path to citizenship for illegal workers, or
2. Criminalize illegal employers

The current situation is very nearly apartheid: the intentional maintaining of a rights deprived working class who can be threatened with jail and deportation if they do not submit to abusive terms of employment.

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's revised travel ban "speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination," a federal appeals court said Thursday in ruling against the executive order targeting six Muslim-majority countries.
Trump's administration vowed to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 10-3 vote, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the ban likely violates the Constitution. And it upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican administration from cutting off visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban unveiled in March. Trump's administration had hoped it would avoid the legal problems that the first version from January encountered. A second appeals court, the 9th U.S. Circuit based in San Francisco, is also weighing the revised travel ban after a federal judge in Hawaii blocked it.
The Supreme Court almost certainly would step into the case if asked. The justices almost always have the final say when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action.
Trump could try to persuade the Supreme Court to allow the policy to take effect, even while the justices weigh whether to hear the case, by arguing that the court orders blocking the ban make the country less safe. If the administration does ask the court to step in, the justices' first vote could signal the court's ultimate decision.

A central question in the case before the 4th Circuit was whether courts should consider Trump's public statements about wanting to bar Muslims from entering the country as evidence that the policy was primarily motivated by the religion.
Trump's administration argued the court should not look beyond the text of the executive order, which doesn't mention religion. The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration said.
But Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote that the government's "asserted national security interest ... appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country."
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the court's ruling blocks Trump's "efforts to strengthen this country's national security."
Trump is not required to admit people from "countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism until he determines that they can be properly vetted" and don't pose a security threat, Sessions said.
The three dissenting judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, said the majority was wrong to look beyond the text of the order. Calling the executive order a "modest action," Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote that Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider the order "on its face." Looked at that way, the executive order "is entirely without constitutional fault," he wrote.
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said if the Supreme Court follows a partisan divide, the Trump administration may fare better since five of the nine are Republican nominees. Still, he said, it's difficult to make a confident prediction because "Supreme Court justices don't always vote in ideological lockstep."
The first travel ban issued Jan. 27 was aimed at seven countries and triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.
The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn't apply to those who already have valid visas. It got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities and removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.
Critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.
The case ruled on by the 4th Circuit was originally brought in Maryland by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.
"President Trump's Muslim ban violates the Constitution, as this decision strongly reaffirms," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case. "The Constitution's prohibition on actions disfavoring or condemning any religion is a fundamental protection for all of us, and we can all be glad that the court today rejected the government's request to set that principle aside."
___
Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer in Richmond, Virginia; Mark Sherman and Darlene Superville in Washington and Matt Barakat in McLean, Virginia, contributed to this report.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...e-court/ar-BBBxdiU?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

[toguy5252]

However Democrats are no better. Doing nothing to get control of illegal entry to the United States as well as overstays of those who were admitted legally, is not a answer to this problem and that is what happened for the past eight years.

There was bipartisan support for a comprehensive solution until the GOP pulled out because it would appear to give Obama a win. The Dems have been trying to deal with this issue in a thoughtful and not knee jerk way for years. The GOP members who had been on side were threatened with primary challenges.

 

[Aardvark154]

^ Not really it was a proposal with a huge amnesty which would by now have been the fifth large scale amnesty since 1980. They wanted to do precious little about enforcement.

Peculiar how every time it is, if we just grant this one final amnesty that will be the end of it.

 

[onthebottom]

On its way to the USSC

 

[toguy5252]

^ Not really it was a proposal with a huge amnesty which would by now have been the fifth large scale amnesty since 1980. They wanted to do precious little about enforcement.

Peculiar how every time it is, if we just grant this one final amnesty that will be the end of it.

The GOP objection was not to the enforcement it was to the road to citizenship.

 

[Smallcock]

It ain't over til it's over. Have at it Supreme Court.

 

[asterwald]

Trump's travel ban would not have changed the outcome regrettably. The perpetrator was born in the UK. That demonstrates the fallacy of the proposed ban. The real danger is not in immigrants who hare very heavily vetted notwithstanding Trumps assertions to the contrary. It is the radicalization of nationals. Hence most, but not all, in the intelligence and security communities are not supporting the ban. Other than Trump appointees who are toeing the party line.

And Jimmy Carter should not have banned Iranians. This is not about what the reasoning is anymore, its more about the Judicial branch trying to take away power from the executive branch.

 

[fuji]

It ain't over til it's over. Have at it Supreme Court.

But what's the justification for the order now? Trump said it was a short term emergency measure until new "extreme vetting" procedures could be adopted.

But he's done fuck all about that despite having all this time. Meanwhile the calamity he predicted would happen without this egregious EO just hasn't happened.

 

[shack]

its more about the Judicial branch trying to take away power from the executive branch.

Can you say paranoia?

I can see the headline now: Supreme Court Judges Take Over the Presidency. Name the Liberal Media Vice-President.

 

[mandrill]

It ain't over til it's over. Have at it Supreme Court.

 

[mandrill]

Can you say paranoia?

I can see the headline now: Supreme Court Judges Take Over the Presidency. Name the Liberal Media Vice-President.

LOL. The Trumpies will start to rant "Fake Courts"!

None of the Trump supporters on this thread have any idea whatsoever about the constitutional arguments and implications of the EO or why the judges have repeatedly struck it down. They buy 100% into the alt right crap about the "liberal activist judges undermining America". And sadly, that is exactly the take that this corrupt, rancid, lying administration wishes them to have. Pathetically, the Trumpies think that the USSC will automatically reinstate the ban because most of the justices are GOP appointments and that makes them "good guys" and "patriotic Americans" - unlike all the other "unpatriotic" judges who struck down the ban. The Trumpies have NO IDEA of the legal issues and arguments and no idea how judges actually think and analyze legal issues.

To Trumpies, "their team" of judges will beat the "enemy team" of judges. It's ignorant beyond words.

 

[Aardvark154]

The GOP objection was not to the enforcement it was to the road to citizenship.

Presumably you know that this road to citizenship would be the fifth road to citizenship since 1980.

 

[oldjones]

Unfortunately Washington and Ottawa seem to be short on those with the ability to draft legislation which will actually accomplish this.

Perhaps because legislation can't make people stop hating you, nor can it make them easier to detect. All it can do in further inconvenience and oppress innocent people who — at least until they encountered the heavy-handed enforcement — were favourably disposed or at worst neutral towards you.

 

[toguy5252]

...its anymore, its more about the Judicial branch trying to take away power from the executive branch.

You are aware that the judiciary is a coequal branch of the US government. This will eventually go to the SCOTUS and the coequal branch will decide if Trump has overstepped.

 

[SuperCharge]

. This is not about what the reasoning is anymore, its more about the Judicial branch trying to take away power from the executive branch.

This is it, right here Asterwald. The lower court needs to stay in their lanes, they know nothing about national security.

 

[fuji]

This is it, right here Asterwald. The lower court needs to stay in their lanes, they know nothing about national security.

You will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to prop up your delusions.

The Circuit judges know a lot more about all these topics than you do, particularly the legal questions.

 

[SuperCharge]

You will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to prop up your delusions.

The Circuit judges know a lot more about all these topics than you do, particularly the legal questions.

I'm not alone, believe me. You know nothing about me, stop acting like you do.

 

[fuji]

I'm not alone, believe me. You know nothing about me, stop acting like you do.

I believe you, the world is full of ignorant people.