First, here is the LAW:
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
This would seem to be authority for this, as well:
HOWEVER…those granted visas and green cards were given due process in order to come here. It SEEMS to me that they are being deprived of due process in the EA. BUT- the law certainly seems to give the authority to PREVENT those holding visas and green cards from coming back.
If you are IN THE USA, it a different ballgame.
The Constitution mentions the word CITIZEN only in making qualifications for office, and in differentiating between various states of the nation. Once you are here you are a PERSON as defined by the founding doc.
That means your rights are no different than ours and, is precisely why Guantanamo is in Cuba.
Perhaps it can be argued that by not passing thru customs these persons are NOT in the USA. I don’t know the fine points of that.
But I do know that DEPORTATION should require due process and the PERSONS if here, cannot be deprived of this any more than any of us can be.
I hope this judge’s ruling is rushed to SCOTUS. The people should be HELD until then so that the pressure remains on our system to resolve this at ‘Trump’ speed.
BTW, every nation but one on that list either has an active Islamic revolt, or land being held by Islamist killers. The other nation is IRAN.
16 comments:
The due process for green card holders who wish to return is an instruction to set up a date with the US Embassy for an interview and vetting process with reconsiders your right of return. Too bad the Tsarnaev brother was allowed to return from Chechnya.
I think the ruling from the bench is more a hollow victory than robust push back. As I read it, it merely allows those trapped in airports and caught in the first wave of the Executive Order to leave the airport.
Just my thoughts and I might be wrong.
Could you clarify "Visa/Green Card Holders here"?
Why is it Visa/Green Card Holders? Don't you just mean Green Card Holders who have a right to travel?
It is my understanding that those holding such cards have those cards at the pleasure of the POTUS (and Congressional law).
These protesters do not appear spontaneously. There is an organization process and, IMO, something much more afoot than merely organizing via social media.
I think we need to start taking their "war" talk seriously.
I consider that a personal threat at this point.
Somewhat OT. . .Judge Jeanine spoke with Rudy Giuliani about Trump's immigration executive order last night. Giuliani reveals how they arrived at the 7 nations. Disturbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLwM9EdtQ3E
====>Judge Jeanine: I want to ask you about this protest. Does this ban have anything to do with religion? How did The President decide the seven countries? I understand a permanent ban on the refugees. Ok, talk to me.
Rudy Giuliani: Ok, I'll tell you the whole history of it. So, when he first announced it, he said "Muslim ban". He called me up and said put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally. I put a commission together with Judge Mukasey, with Congressman McCaul, Pete King, a whole group of other expert lawyers on this and what we did is we focused on, instead of religion. . .DANGER. The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis. . .not a religious basis. Perfectly legal. Perfectly sensible. That's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.
Judge Jeanine: Well, let me ask you this. Well, you know, I was kind of surprised to see that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not on the list. And yet, we know that the San Bernadino attack by Syed Farouk and Malik, I think her name was Tashfeen Malik. She was born in Pakistan and then came through Saudi Arabia. So, I mean, why were some of those countries left out?
Rudy Giuliani: I'll tell you about Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is going through a massive change. I think The Kingdom, particularly under the new prince has a real understanding that we're dealing with a massive radical Islamic terrorist problem. It is not the old Saudi Arabia. This isn't the Saudi Arabia of 2000, 2001, 2002. President Obama (!!!) is dealing with a new Saudi Arabia...(interrupted by Judge Jenean) "President Trump, rather, is dealing with a very different Saudi Arabia than President Obama was dealing with. Saudi Arabia has a much closer relationship with Israel and with us - if we know how to use it correctly.<===
to be continued
continued from above
Rudy's reasoning is utter B.S. and he should know better.
The House of Saud and the sitting prince's authority is extremely tenuous. Rule & control over Saudi Arabia and Islam's holy places by the House of Saud was secured in 1979 during the Siege of Mecca with the understanding that the House of Saud holds sway ONLY so long as they maintain their agreement with Islamic hardliners to use their newly acquired oil wealth to spread Islam globally by ANY and ALL means as dictated by Islamic doctrine and interpreted by Islamic scholars and hardliners - just as the Islamic ringleader Juhayman took seige of one of the holiest places in all of Islam, Mecca. Muslims are the biggest victims of Islam throughout history. They willingly sacrifice their own to achieve doctrinal ends. For Rudy to suggest that Saudi Arabia is very different simply because their mortal enemy, Shia Iran was gaining strength during and with the aid of the Obama administration - is very short sighted if not utterly blind to this enemy and this enemy's purpose. Saudis will gladly use Western blood and treasure, particularly that of those they routinely identify and despise and throw stones at the big and little satan hajj pillars to protect themselves from the Shia threat. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
The 'gates of ijtihad' are closed for over a thousand years. Islam will never moderate, no matter what fairy tales our politicians prefer to take to bed.
I suggest Rudy and company familiarize themselves with this crucial understanding of history . . ."Siege of Mecca" by Yaroslav Trofimov
and a frequent reading recommendation by Hugh Fitzgerald over at JihadWatch.org during 04-08...
J.B.Kelly: Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies which was originally published in the British magazine "Encounter" in July 1979 and republished at JW in 2008.
This is why I could not vote for Giuliani in 2008 during the primaries. He has a mild case of Islamophilia - convinced Islam can be moderated.
Green cards are visas, the I-551. They authorize a lawful presence in the United States and are work documents. They are subject to revocation at any time. Permanent Resident status is not really permanent. It only means lawful resident for an undetermined amount of time.
Pete,
Thanks for that information!
@AoW@1:36 re: "These protesters do not appear spontaneously."
See this image of poster hoisted by protesters
http://i.imgur.com/qO6WsAC.jpg
REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS WELCOME HERE.
No Muslim Ban
No Border Wall
Our Cities Stand Tall
Provided by . . .MoveOn.org
I don't get the fetishism some people seem to have for legal minutiae. That way of looking at the world empowers lawyers, who often are just empty sophists. How about this, let's not let any more muslims into our country, and then once we close the border to them, we can go through whatever yap yap yapping about how the law or whatever is on our side. If you want I can compose a series of sonnets in both the Petrachan and Shakspearean manner, the theme of which will be that it's correct to exclude muslims. But first let's exclude them, then the navel gazing can come later. Because, really, it would be better without Islam.
Here's the problem with deporting Green Cards:
MANY PEOPLE COME TO THE US ON A WORK VISA, AND LIVE HERE FOR YEARS, BUILDING A LIFE, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, CONTRIBUTING, GETTING MARRIED, HAVING CHILDREN,
etc.
ALL ON A GREEN CARD.
I had a business partner for years who was married, with children, a great guy, very productive,
and the whole time he was on a Green Card.
NOW,
I had warned him, that IN MY OPINION, he should have gotten his citizenship, and here is WHAT I TOLD HIM:
YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN THE WINDS OF CHANGE MIGHT BLOW AND AMERICA WILL NOT BE SO PRE-DISPOSED TO ALLOWING NEW IMMIGRANTS TO BECOME CITIZENS.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOOD AND REASONABLE ADVICE THEN AND I THINK IT IS GOOD AND REASONABLE ADVICE NOW.
By the way, everyone, Schutrum is an attorney, if I am not mistaken.
Green cards/visas might be killable at the pleasure of POTUS, but if you are in the USA the Constitution protects PERSONS.
The way I read the law, if you are overseas, you might be fucked, and how fucked looks like it depends on 2 things, how the airline reads the law allowing you to get on the plane, and if you are in the USA on the wrong side of the customs entry point at the airport. I would say a visit to the US embassy or consulate a REAL good idea
As for the minutiae of the law... we are a NATION OF LAWS, not men. It sucks, but it beats every alternative by a mile.
The USA is now dividing on whether we want to end up like Germany or Sweden or remain the USA which will not tolerate religious killers and religious racists and bigots?
AYFKM?
I am not for revocation of legal status en masse. I think people should be able to count on the government's decision and families should be kept together. Of course, if you commit serious crimes or are threat to security, then all bets are off.
Pete, your position seems reasonable to me.
That is what I would favor.
Epa,
If these assholes want to divide over this, and if they want to go to war, I am more than willing.
I live in California, so I have more to lose than anyone major contributor here at IBA.
But I really don't give a fuck.
And, it's not a good idea to fight against people like me who don't give a fuck.
Post a Comment