-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WaPo: Trump bans travelers from six Muslim-majority countries applying for visas
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
PandaPandaPanda
Member
I'm not an attorney, but i'm going to assume that the DOJ has revised this one to stand up to legal scrutiny because the first one was clearly rushed out-no if's and buts about that.
But then again the man occupying the oval office is an idiot so who knows
I'm sure the proper groups are already looking at it to see what legal grounds there are if any to take this to court for.
What did he mean by this?
Member
I give it a week
So, assuming this goes to court, the Trump administration would have to:
1) Somehow convince the courts that this ban is not illegal or unconstitutional under American law. This would be a tall order since I'm pretty sure it is illegal to ban immigrants based on national origin or religion.
2) Prove that people traveling from these specific countries pose a direct threat to America and its citizens. Again, a tall order considering the 99% of domestic terror attacks (like mass shootings) are carried out by US citizens who've become radicalized or otherwise have severe mental health issues.
3) Prove that this ban would eliminate that threat. Well, it's hard to eliminate a threat that doesn't actually exist, so ¯\_(ツ
_/¯
Yeah, good luck Donny.
1) Somehow convince the courts that this ban is not illegal or unconstitutional under American law. This would be a tall order since I'm pretty sure it is illegal to ban immigrants based on national origin or religion.
2) Prove that people traveling from these specific countries pose a direct threat to America and its citizens. Again, a tall order considering the 99% of domestic terror attacks (like mass shootings) are carried out by US citizens who've become radicalized or otherwise have severe mental health issues.
3) Prove that this ban would eliminate that threat. Well, it's hard to eliminate a threat that doesn't actually exist, so ¯\_(ツ
_/¯Yeah, good luck Donny.
Kiever Sher
Member
Yup, incredible that got through.
Or maybe not THAT incredible. all Muslims are the same after all.
I think the arguments that originally led to the restraining order are voided by this version but that just moves the needle deeper into the set of arguments they've already made.
I don't believe that's true.
fredrancour
Member
some trump supporters got hyped for him because he openly expressed disdain for non-white people. he is pushing an executive order expressing disdain for non-white non-christian people to appease those supporters as much as he can without hurting his own business interests. Trump himself seems to be rather racist, bannon is a true believer in white supremacy, and Jeff Sessions is Jeff Sessions.
The Last Wizard
Member
Sure am glad my country is protecting me from them damn brown terrorists and not them white ter...I mean lone wolves who obviously need help😢
this is not a new claim btw
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0523.aspx
sadly this is probably true.
superdeluxe
Member
Its time to rise up again Washington
Also,
we should have a real conversation about the white house basically coming up with a way to ignore the judiciary.
1) Sign illegal EO.
2) Inact EO and cause chaos, detain people with visas and cause a shitshow
3) Have courts overturn EO.
4) Instead of appealing EO or working through court system, write new almost identical EO.
5) Inact "new" EO, cause chaos, detain people and cause a shitshow.
This is a new overreach by the executive to bypass the judiciaries previous rulings. It's really really fucked up beyond just being a shitty racist thing to do. It's an authoritarian powergrab.
we should have a real conversation about the white house basically coming up with a way to ignore the judiciary.
1) Sign illegal EO.
2) Inact EO and cause chaos, detain people with visas and cause a shitshow
3) Have courts overturn EO.
4) Instead of appealing EO or working through court system, write new almost identical EO.
5) Inact "new" EO, cause chaos, detain people and cause a shitshow.
This is a new overreach by the executive to bypass the judiciaries previous rulings. It's really really fucked up beyond just being a shitty racist thing to do. It's an authoritarian powergrab.
TheLaughingStock
Member
It looks like based off CNN's reporting that the order was reworked based off various legal challenges, the administration briefed relevant parties before it went into effect, and rescinded the previous order explicitly. We'll see what the counterarguments say.
The Artisan
Member
my leg
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
I hope your right, but the rollout is different. No visa bans, which caused most of the protests. I think Irag being except. Also Syrian only 120 day betting, not banned outright is a key.
Again not an expert on these matters, just understanding the difference of the orders.
It is like seeing a movie, then buying the unrated version with three minutes of extra talking that sucks.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
It's really not almost identical.
On refugees, not on immigration. Would be bad news for a lot of people around the world looking to escape a horrible situation, but it's not a game-changer.
superdeluxe
Member
Yup. Sad to say this is a distraction, we need to keep our eye on the prize and that is Russia.
Once an order is given and passes muster, it's a trivial matter to "renew" the order.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/president-obama-states-of-emergency/16851775/
There's a temporary order from the Carter administration that was still floating around at the time of that writing.
Futurevoid
Member
It's not even remotely "identical".
From what I've come to understand, it is within the rights of the president to control immigration like this... But there were some vagaries in the previous EO which made it impossible to clear.
I'm assuming that this EO was vetted carefully, and I would imagine that this one is going to stand. What's the feeling at this point? Is this likely to stick?
I'm assuming that this EO was vetted carefully, and I would imagine that this one is going to stand. What's the feeling at this point? Is this likely to stick?
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
For what impeachment? Fantasy.
Futurevoid
Member
The previous order is definitely done. In the new EO:
You can read the full EO here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
I really wish the significance of this got more attention alongside with how terrible it is. They are literally going around the process to get their way.
David H Wong
Banned
As far as I can tell they addressed every issue the courts had with the last order. It will be challenged but I don't know if any reason it would fail this time.
tearsintherain
Member
One possible reason is that the 6 countries covered are not providing enough information to the US immigration officials on people who apply for visas/refugee status. Iraq was removed from the list specifically because Iraqi government officials will now provide more background information on people who apply for US visas.
Of course with a country like Syria I'm not even sure how any of that works, since aren't we technically at war with them or something?
Walter White Walker
Member
Trump and his lackeys are on record a thousand times over saying they want to ban Muslims. He can couch this thing in any language he pleases but people and judges know what's up.
?
How is re-writing an executive order, based on legal criticisms from the courts, 'going around the process'?
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
All signs point that this one was carefully planned hence the delay in it. Hell it doesn't even go into effect untill the 16 so no travel delays, which was a huge problem with the last order.
Oh, I read it. It's still a dumb fucking policy that is targeting a religious group. They just took out the language that expressly said so.
The only differences are:
1) Iraq is excluded
2) They don't specifically say they are going to benefit repressed minority religious groups within these countries
3) If you have a Visa, you still have a Visa.
Everything else about it is a "test" the same way the last ban was, and even that language from the announcement is basically saying the judiciary should go fuck themselves from overturning the last one.
It is still a ban targeting muslim majority countries because of a false notion that being of born in one of those countries makes you more likely to be a terrorist regardless of who you are and where you live. This is still an attempt in the words of members and allies of this administration to make a muslim ban "legal" without impacting anyone who does substantial business with the United States.
Vestal
Gold Member
More of not using the intelligence provided by the various department such as DHS saying that this EO is not necessary and nothing positive would be gained from it.
Futurevoid
Member
They aren't going around any process here. They are abandoning any further litigation on the previous EO because they know it won't stand up to legal scrutiny. Despite all of his "SEE YOU IN COURT!" bullshit - this is basically a full on admission by the administration the original executive order was a disaster no matter how you slice it.
Hence why this new order exists which is far more focused in scope, much much softer and written to address a vast majority of the legal issues brought about by the courts.
Angelus Errare
Banned
That'll show the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
This EO still does fuck all to combat "terrorism".
This EO still does fuck all to combat "terrorism".
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Not that I see.As sad as it is this seems to be a "better" written( more evil) order.
fredrancour
Member
well there's a DHS report saying that country of origin is useless as a predictor for terrorist activity, but I don't know if that counts as legal evidence that this is still primarily motivated by religious hatred.
The executive order is likely completely useless, and will probably cause more future harm than good. On that most agree.
But we're discussing legal roadblocks. Where are they?
Is this why they revoked so many visas the last time around? so they could say "oh we just aren't offering new visas" while still keeping a ton of people who originally had visas out of the country?
I think it's still based on the same principle though. Discriminating based on country, which is still unconstitutional, right?
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
What people that have visa are they keeping out of the country with this new order?
Well, these countries were indeed included in the previous administration's list of the most dangerous countries, as it pertains to terrorism, in the world.
As long as there is something to back these claims, the argument could easily be made that they are not based strictly on religious affiliation.
Futurevoid
Member
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with it at a policy level. I don't and I think its an utter waste of time/effort and will do fuck all to address national security/terrorism issues.. Nonetheless, I think many are in for disappointment if they think this new EO will suffer the same fate as the first from a legal perspective. I don't think it will.
A few points on differences::
1. The EO addresses each country on the list on a case by case basis. Specifically mentioning their status as a designated state sponsor of terrorism and/or reasons why these countries are the focus of new order. Legally this is important and was lacking in the previous order.
2. The removal of Iraq is no small omission. It lists specific reasons for why the omission is made and directly helps to contradict the optics of the order being a pure Muslim ban.
3. Actively noting examples of cases of terrorist threats by foreign nationals in the order will help to justify its existence. Even if the "300 cases" example is specious as fuck and requires a great deal more specificity before it is worthwhile.
4. The exclusions/waivers in this EO are remarkably softer than the first. Legal Permanent Residents, those with already existing visas, reactivating visas for those that had them back to the issuance of the original EO and much much more. Again, this is no small change.
5. Even more additional waivers that can be claimed due to undue hardship as the new order outlines.
6. Removing the call out to Syrian refugees specifically will again help to push back against the optics of this being a Muslim ban as well. It's not just a general refugee ban which is well within the power of the Executive.
This new EO amounts to nothing more than a closure of new Visa applicants from these countries moving forward as opposed to the ridiculous broad nature of the first that caused outrageous chaos around the country.
I'll reiterate - I don't agree with this course of action but this new EO will likely stand up to legal scrutiny moving forward. At least it has a far better chance of doing so than the first one.
- Status