Apple Joins Nearly 100 U.S. Firms to File Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Immigration Ban

[Karma*Police]

There is nothing discriminatory here. The POTUS has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do this. I am not going to continue to argue back and forth on it.

And just in case you missed it...


"(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
"

Now, keep arguing all you like, you're incorrect. The LAW is on his side. Residents of other countries have ZERO constitutional rights. Period.

Your tunnel vision is hampering your ability to listen to reason and valid arguments. Law is not that black and white. Trump's campaign statements to ban all muslims will be used to show that his decision was based on discrimination, not for safety reasons, which will force him to prove that all immigrants and refugees from those 7 nations posed a threat. The new AG will try to show that it wasn't based on discrimination since not all Muslims are banned. The judges will weigh those arguments carefully and come to a decision.

It's called checks and balances and it exists so that we don't have idiot presidents acting like Hitler. So until we get a decision from the courts, what Trump did may not be legal and there is most definitely a grey area which you seem incapable of processing for some reason. The very fact that there were federal judges who overturned the ban and a decision still hasn't been made should be enough to inform any reasonable person of that.

 

[TechGeek76]

However, Congress amended the law you refer to in 1965 to include prohibiting “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

Good thing this is not regarding issuing Visas then. Stop, seriously, the excuses are getting quite old.
[doublepost=1486660085][/doublepost]

Your tunnel vision is hampering your ability to listen to reason and valid arguments. Law is not that black and white. Trump's campaign statements to ban all muslims will be used to show that his decision was based on discrimination, not for safety reasons, which will force him to prove that all immigrants and refugees from those 7 nations posed a threat. The new AG will try to show that it wasn't based on discrimination since not all Muslims are banned. The judges will weigh those arguments carefully and come to a decision.

It's called checks and balances and it exists so that we don't have idiot presidents acting like Hitler. So until we get a decision from the courts, what Trump did may not be legal and there is most definitely a grey area which you seem incapable of processing for some reason. The very fact that there were federal judges who overturned the ban and a decision still hasn't been made should be enough to inform any reasonable person of that.

Yawn....

I am done responding. You can continue to believe you're correct. Those nations already have been PROVEN to pose a threat from PREVIOUS Administrations, hence, the ban. This couldn't possibly be any simpler.

Also, the Hitler reference? Grow up. Seriously.

 

[jlc1978]

Good thing this is not regarding issuing Visas then. Stop, seriously, the excuses are getting quite old.

The law clearly addresses the issuance of visas so the courts get to decide if POTUS has the authority to do what he did or if he overstepped his authority and thus overturn all, or some, of his ban. Even absent the 1965 amendment the courts still get to decide if a law is constitutional and thus if the actions were permitted, so it is appropriate for them to weigh in. I'm not sure why that isn't easy to understand.

 

[Urban Joe]

Your tunnel vision is hampering your ability to listen to reason and valid arguments. Law is not that black and white. Trump's campaign statements to ban all muslims will be used to show that his decision was based on discrimination, not for safety reasons, which will force him to prove that all immigrants and refugees from those 7 nations posed a threat. The new AG will try to show that it wasn't based on discrimination since not all Muslims are banned. The judges will weigh those arguments carefully and come to a decision.

It's called checks and balances and it exists so that we don't have idiot presidents acting like Hitler. So until we get a decision from the courts, what Trump did may not be legal and there is most definitely a grey area which you seem incapable of processing for some reason. The very fact that there were federal judges who overturned the ban and a decision still hasn't been made should be enough to inform any reasonable person of that.

Yeah, so far the checks and balances are working fine. Congress and a more moderate Supreme Court will bring common sense back and stop this radical globalist agenda.

 

[bradl]

Yeah, so far the checks and balances are working fine. Congress and a more moderate Supreme Court will bring common sense back and stop this radical globalist agenda.

Yet you and your cohorts here keep grandstanding on that you believe that the EO issued is codified law, is the final authority, and no other means of check or balance can override that. You are woefully incorrect.

As I stated many times in this thread, if any portion of this EO runs afoul to the USC, United States Constitution, its amendments, or decisions handed down by SCOTUS, then this EO will be nullified. That is fact.

And as stated before, there were 4 times in which the very same thing stated in this EO were ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS; 2 of which were during the Chinese Exclusion Act, which did the very same thing this EO did, against ONE country.

So if that was ruled to be wrong for one country, what the hell do you think is going to happen against 7?

BL.

 

[Urban Joe]

Yet you and your cohorts here keep grandstanding on that you believe that the EO issued is codified law, is the final authority, and no other means of check or balance can override that. You are woefully incorrect.

As I stated many times in this thread, if any portion of this EO runs afoul to the USC, United States Constitution, its amendments, or decisions handed down by SCOTUS, then this EO will be nullified. That is fact.

And as stated before, there were 4 times in which the very same thing stated in this EO were ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS; 2 of which were during the Chinese Exclusion Act, which did the very same thing this EO did, against ONE country.

So if that was ruled to be wrong for one country, what the hell do you think is going to happen against 7?

BL.

And like all things in life there is a thing called "perspective." As we have seen the Constitution can and has been interpreted in opposite ways. Now with the Courts swinging back to center-right you WILL see these "subjective" interpretations shift. Please don't claim that the liberal interpretation is the ONLY VALID interpretation. The 9th District Court is notoriously radical left and has been OVERTURNED many times by the Supremes. Just keep that in "perspective." People have just as much of a right to have a conservative world view as a liberal world view. Notice I don't cast that in partisan terms. In my opinion the agendas of the Republican Party has recently been out of step with what is best. BLOWING 10 Trillion dollars like drunken sailors has not made me happy with many people in DC republican or democrat. That money was pretty well WASTED and the American people were robbed blind. What Bernie Madoff did wasn't a drop in an olympic swimming pool to what they've done.

 

[Karma*Police]

Good thing this is not regarding issuing Visas then. Stop, seriously, the excuses are getting quite old.
[doublepost=1486660085][/doublepost]Yawn....

I am done responding. You can continue to believe you're correct. Those nations already have been PROVEN to pose a threat from PREVIOUS Administrations, hence, the ban. This couldn't possibly be any simpler.

Also, the Hitler reference? Grow up. Seriously.

Name one nation out of the 7 that are on the banned list that was directly or indirectly involved in terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. You keep talking about facts and proof but never offer up any to prove your case. Instead, you repeatedly tell others how they're wrong and how this is an open and shut case even though reality says otherwise.

As for the Hitler reference, I could have chosen any demagogue to make my point about why the founding fathers put those checks and balances in place. Your emotions and hatred (or love of Trump) are not only blinding you to the facts, but it's impacting your reading comprehension skills.

 

[bradl]

And like all things in life there is a thing called "perspective." As we have seen the Constitution can and has been interpreted in opposite ways. Now with the Courts swinging back to center-right you WILL see these "subjective" interpretations shift. Please don't claim that the liberal interpretation is the ONLY VALID interpretation. The 9th District Court is notoriously radical left and has been OVERTURNED many times by the Supremes. Just keep that in "perspective." People have just as much of a right to have a conservative world view as a liberal world view. Notice I don't cast that in partisan terms. In my opinion the agendas of the Republican Party has recently been out of step with what is best. BLOWING 10 Trillion dollars like drunken sailors has not made me happy with many people in DC republican or democrat. That money was pretty well WASTED and the American people were robbed blind. What Bernie Madoff did wasn't a drop in an olympic swimming pool to what they've done.

One does not have a RIGHT to have a conservative world, just as much as one does not have a RIGHT to a liberal one.

Those views are exactly that: VIEWS and OPINIONS. They are not etched in stone to where a person has a right (codified by law) to have that world. That right ends where the next person's views and opinions begin.

BL.

 

[TechGeek76]

Name one nation out of the 7 that are on the banned list that was directly or indirectly involved in terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. You keep talking about facts and proof but never offer up any to prove your case. Instead, you repeatedly tell others how they're wrong and how this is an open and shut case even though reality says otherwise.

As for the Hitler reference, I could have chosen any demagogue to make my point about why the founding fathers put those checks and balances in place. Your emotions and hatred (or love of Trump) are not only blinding you to the facts, but it's impacting your reading comprehension skills.

I've GIVEN you the proof, you know, the actual STATUTE that you keep IGNORING, that you ignore it is YOUR problem. I'll post AGAIN so maybe it will sink in for you.

"(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
"

The above, is NOT debatable. Period.

And the idiotic dig about my "love" for or against, I didn't vote for either so you can take that little snide remark and shove it.
[doublepost=1486673819][/doublepost]

The law clearly addresses the issuance of visas so the courts get to decide if POTUS has the authority to do what he did or if he overstepped his authority and thus overturn all, or some, of his ban. Even absent the 1965 amendment the courts still get to decide if a law is constitutional and thus if the actions were permitted, so it is appropriate for them to weigh in. I'm not sure why that isn't easy to understand.

AGAIN.....


(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


This is not debatable. Sorry. I am not sure what about this YOU don't understand.

 

[bradl]

I've GIVEN you the proof, you know, the actual STATUTE that you keep IGNORING, that you ignore it is YOUR problem. I'll post AGAIN so maybe it will sink in for you.

"(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
"

The above, is NOT debatable. Period.

And the idiotic dig about my "love" for or against, I didn't vote for either so you can take that little snide remark and shove it.

And I will post, once again, the court cases that call that statute into scrutiny, as SCOTUS has ruled against that very statute:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadvydas_v._Davis

The majority opinion:

Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court. He noted that the statute grants the Attorney General the authority to detain a deportee past the term of the 90-day removal period, without judicial or administrative review. Breyer indicated that an indefinite, potentially permanent detention was unconstitutional. Using the principles of statutory construction, Breyer stated that the court must infer that the law limits such a detention to that period that is necessary to accomplish the removal of the alien from the United States. Since the detention was for the purpose of removing the alien from the country, once the alien cannot be removed, the immigration purpose for the detention no longer exists.[9] Without a limitation on detentions, the court would be forced to declare the law unconstitutional.[3] He noted that allowing an administrative agency to conduct an unreviewable hearing on such a fundamental right had already been ruled against by the court.[2][10]

The government also argued that Congress had plenary power to enact such a law under its authority to control immigration, and that both the executive and judicial branches must defer to that decisionmaking. Breyer noted that while Congress may use that power, they "must choose 'a constitutionally permissive means of implementing' that power" and the interpretation that the government advocates is not such a permissive means. The court ruled that a hearing must be held after a six-month detention.[2][10][11] Substantive due process applied to aliens that resided within the United States, and absent a showing that they were a danger to society or a flight risk, they could not be detained.[9]

Again, Checks and Balances, with the Judicial branch of our government having the final say, NOT the POTUS.

BL.

 

[webbuzz]

The number of Constitutional Attorneys in PRSI is astounding.

 

[Karma*Police]

I've GIVEN you the proof, you know, the actual STATUTE that you keep IGNORING, that you ignore it is YOUR problem. I'll post AGAIN so maybe it will sink in for you.

"(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
"

The above, is NOT debatable. Period.

And the idiotic dig about my "love" for or against, I didn't vote for either so you can take that little snide remark and shove it.
[doublepost=1486673819][/doublepost]AGAIN.....


(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


This is not debatable. Sorry. I am not sure what about this YOU don't understand.

"This is not debatable" is where you're clearly wrong. It's being debated right now, but for whatever reason, you keep ignoring reality. Clearly, this is a futile discussion. I will let you go on believing what you want to believe and end my discourse with you here.

 

[milo]

And now the appeals court rejected reinstating the ban. Probably headed to SCOTUS, it will be a while before they have that ninth judge.

 

[Urban Joe]

One does not have a RIGHT to have a conservative world, just as much as one does not have a RIGHT to a liberal one.

Those views are exactly that: VIEWS and OPINIONS. They are not etched in stone to where a person has a right (codified by law) to have that world. That right ends where the next person's views and opinions begin.

BL.

You're working REALLY hard to twist my words. I'm saying that people have a right to their opinion whether that is liberal or conservative.

 

[bradl]

You're working REALLY hard to twist my words. I'm saying that people have a right to their opinion whether that is liberal or conservative.

Not twisting your words at all. You should be more clear in what you are trying to say. Someone's "world" does not necessarily constitute someone else's "world".

BL.

 

[inscrewtable]

snip

You know I really don't blame you for replying with ad hominem attacks, after all when one doesn't have an valid argument, the ad hominem approach is de rigueur.

 

[jlc1978]

This is not debatable. Sorry. I am not sure what about this YOU don't understand.

I'm not sure why you don't understand the concept of amending a law. It's a simple concept; Congress decides to change a portion of a law and passes a new law making the changes. Once the President signs it into law the changes take affect.

Congress cleary limited the scope of the law you reference with the 65 law amending the original. I realize that lays waste to your arguement but the fact remains there are limits to the President's power as determined by actions of Congress. How much is clearly up to the courts to decide and Trump lost bigly today. No doubt it will go to SCOTUS.

So, yes it is debatable even if you refuse to admit it.

 

[DevNull0]

Individuals are inherently biased either towards love or selfishness....every other position proceeds from that chosen polarity.

That is the most ignorant thing I've read on this thread (and that is saying a lot). It might be the most ignorant thing i have ever read.

 

[Urban Joe]

That is the most ignorant thing I've read on this thread (and that is saying a lot). It might be the most ignorant thing i have ever read.

That's an interesting reply. So you don't think that individuals gravitate toward being loving or selfish ?
Nearly every single person I have met in my life either tends to be a giver or taker. That's just been
my experience. And I do see how a lot of people's opinions and world views are filtered through this
basic choice people have to be loving and giving or selfish and greedy. If that makes me ignorant, I stand guilty
as charged.
[doublepost=1486700333][/doublepost]

Not twisting your words at all. You should be more clear in what you are trying to say. Someone's "world" does not necessarily constitute someone else's "world".

BL.

Sorry but You didn't even read what I wrote. I said "world view" in both instances. Leaving off words that change the meaning of what I said is twisting my words. Do we need to get down a dictionary and start debating the meaning of words and common phrases?

 

[DevNull0]

That's an interesting reply. So you don't think that individuals gravitate toward being loving or selfish ?
Nearly every single person I have met in my life either tends to be a giver or taker. That's just been
my experience.

First, you're changing your statement slightly from love vs selfishness to giver vs taker.

But anyway. If I'm generous and giving with my family and friends, but take as much as I can get for the least effort at work, where do I fit on your scale?

More important who defines what is giving and taking. I live Toronto, we have about 10% of the city population either in community housing or on the waiting list for it. Of course there are many people in genuine need, but do you really believe 10% of the adult population of a major city is unable to support themselves? And are also unable to move where their are jobs or lower costs of living? These low income people also get subsidized energy (or energy bills have more than doubled in the past 10 years, and our taxes are being used to to bring the prices back down for low income people, raising our taxes as well). They get free university education for their kids, free dental care, free prescription drugs, free lawyers (we don't have a right to a lawyer in Canada like Americans do), and a huge list. Schools in the community housing areas offer free breakfasts for the whole community (not just the students), there is no end to the list of what our society pays for them.

To be clear this is 100% *not* a race issue. It's a financial class issue. I work in criminal law. I see these "low income" show up for court with their free lawyers in $1000+ "Canada Goose" jackets, designer jeans, etc while they are on welfare. Their kids have things I can't afford for my kids while I'm working full time. And they're always complaining they're not given enough to get by.

There is a huge push in our society to give them more, do more for the "unfortunate". So, now, when I'm asked to give money to a charity to help the "poor", I'm being selfish?

Now, the median house price in Toronto is $1.3 million. The median *family* income is $73,000. The median income for the richest 1% of families is $322,000. At 3% interest and a 20 year repayment on a $1.3 million mortgage, the annual payments are $87,400. That means the mortgage payment is above the median pre-tax family income. Talk about unaffordable, you'd need more than 100% of your gross pay just to feed your mortgage. Only the richest few percent in the entire city can afford an average home. While at the same time, there is a huge push to keep raising taxes and service fees around the city to help pay for more "affordable" housing. There is no affordable housing for people who work.

Now if I begrudge my taxes going up to subsidize people who don't work at all and yet still live better than I do, I'm motivated by selfishness and greed? Really?

How about this one. A 56 year old woman had a stroke. Her family owned a home and had an above average income. Anyone on welfare would get all medical, rehab, and drugs covered for free. She couldn't work and those medical expenses were more than 100% of her husband's income. The family lost their home, all their savings, and then had to cut off her treatment. They wrote to the premier's office for help, and the reply was a suggestion to divorce her husband so she could go on welfare and get all her expenses covered. If I am disgusted by that situation and think we need to divert resources away from the poor and towards actual working people, I'm selfish?

I could go on and on, but I really doubt anyone will actually read everything I have here. Do you at least begin to understand why I found your flippant comment to be so ignorant?

 

[Urban Joe]

Thank you! You made some great points that make plenty of sense. I stand by what I said and I'm not saying there is anything selfish about common sense fiscal policy that is actually fair. You're making a good case that gvt. redistribution can cause real problems and doing so in the name of "helping" the disadvantaged doesn't make it any better. Alot of policies here, and apparently in Canada, actually are very harmful to the working classes which is grossly unfair. In terms of selfishness I would probably ascribe that blame, in many of these cases, to the politicians who are creating policies for political self interest, not practical reasons. ps. I guess Toronto real estate is similar to San Francisco?

 

[jlc1978]

Thank you! You made some great points that make plenty of sense. I stand by what I said and I'm not saying there is anything selfish about common sense fiscal policy that is actually fair. You're making a good case that gvt. redistribution can cause real problems and doing so in the name of "helping" the disadvantaged doesn't make it any better. Alot of policies here, and apparently in Canada, actually are very harmful to the working classes which is grossly unfair. In terms of selfishness I would probably ascribe that blame, in many of these cases, to the politicians who are creating policies for political self interest, not practical reasons. ps. I guess Toronto real estate is similar to San Francisco?

Those are very complex issues, and edge cases often don't do them justice. There are plenty of working poor that need help to get by, for example when I was on active duty I had troops on food stamps because their pay scale and family size made them eligible. Commissaries take food stamps for just that reason.

 

[amegicfox]

Apple is now a political machine taking the left progressive liberals side and fighting for their party.

This is even more obvious since Tim never opposed any of the Obama policies and he agreed 100% with every policy the previous government did in the last 8 years.

I guess Tim and Obama have the exact same brain and ideology.

I wonder what happens to any of the over 100,000 Apple employees that may disagree with Apple's left ideology

 

[JGRE]

I've GIVEN you the proof, you know, the actual STATUTE that you keep IGNORING, that you ignore it is YOUR problem. I'll post AGAIN so maybe it will sink in for you.

"(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
"

The above, is NOT debatable. Period.

And the idiotic dig about my "love" for or against, I didn't vote for either so you can take that little snide remark and shove it.
[doublepost=1486673819][/doublepost]AGAIN.....


(f)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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


This is not debatable. Sorry. I am not sure what about this YOU don't understand.

Has your IQ ever been tested?

 

[jlc1978]

Apple is now a political machine taking the left progressive liberals side and fighting for their party.

This is even more obvious since Tim never opposed any of the Obama policies and he agreed 100% with every policy the previous government did in the last 8 years.

That's right, Tim immediately rolled over and said "I'll crack every iPhone for you..." during that whole fight over unlocking iPhones and trampling our privacy rights..

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/...tests-relationship-with-white-house.html?_r=0