Apple Not Listed on New Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Second Travel Ban

[manu chao]

Iran is a very well organized country, with a functional bureaucracy. One of its missions, declared officially for many years which included a proxy war, is the end of America (and Israel). It is therefore plausible that the Iranian bureaucracy might not be willing to cooperate with the American bureaucracy in vetting refugees and those asking for a visa, thus exponentially increasing the risk of issuing a visa to a dangerous element of the Iranian nation.

Let's not mix the ban on Iranian nationals and the ban on refugees. Two separate things. When an Iranian applies for a Visa (which they must before being able to enter the U.S.), it's the bureaucracy of Iran that allows them to provide documents on everything from birth certificates to bank statements.

And while Iran has declared America to be a mortal enemy, they also signed a nuclear agreement with a group of countries that included the U.S.. And more importantly, Iran has long stopped terrorist attacks in the West, there is no ISIS in Iran.
[doublepost=1489676217][/doublepost]

Why is it that when this President does this, it makes top headlines but when many presidents before him have done the same, no one seems to remember?

Show me which presidents have issued entry bans based on nationality.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Let's not mix the ban on Iranian nationals and the ban on refugees. Two separate things. When an Iranian applies for a Visa (which they must before being able to enter the U.S.), it's the bureaucracy of Iran that allows them to provide documents on everything from birth certificates to bank statements.

And while Iran has declared America to be a mortal enemy, they also signed a nuclear agreement with a group of countries that included the U.S.. And more importantly, Iran has long stopped terrorist attacks in the West, there is no ISIS in Iran.
[doublepost=1489676217][/doublepost]
Show me which presidents have issued entry bans based on nationality.

To be honest with you, I think that the ban on Iranian nationals is overzealous. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that it's without some merit.
The problem is in the bolded part, above. The US has no control on what the Iranians will provide, and the US does not have a friendly relationship. A diplomatic relationship - as you rightfully pointed out, there is one - doesn't mean friendship, and it doesn't mean much in this case. It simply means that the two countries have official diplomatic (and not necessarily consular) interests in common. That's it.

 

[mozumder]

It's not criminal or tort law. It's policy we're talking about. Intent is not meant as the mental attitude, it is meant as the ultimate 'problem' that the law itself (and not who writes it) deals with.

Right, which is why this EO is illegal, since the intent is to ban Muslims, instead of protecting Americans.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Right, which is why this EO is illegal, since the intent is to ban Muslims, instead of protecting Americans.

Well, the SCOTUS will decide.

 

[Starflyer]

All public declarations receive authority and derive from law.
[doublepost=1489672687][/doublepost]

Yes, since the judicial branch looks for intent of law when deciding on validity of law.

Right, which is why this EO is illegal, since the intent is to ban Muslims, instead of protecting Americans.

Well, if that was the intent, trump failed miserably:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-to...ries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

 

[Cineplex]

Tim must be out shopping for watch band material. He missed this one.

 

[Bigsk8r]

A lot of people miss the only fact that matters, Trump has legal authority to do this, no matter who or what country. That's a simple fact.

Oh, I know it... I considered that the first point.

 

[TechGeek76]

Right, which is why this EO is illegal, since the intent is to ban Muslims, instead of protecting Americans.

It's not illegal, what part are you not understanding? He has 100 percent AUTHORITY to do this.

 

[manu chao]

To be honest with you, I think that the ban on Iranian nationals is overzealous. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that it's without some merit.
The problem is in the bolded part, above. The US has no control on what the Iranians will provide, and the US does not have a friendly relationship.

There is quite a number of countries the U.S. doesn't have a friendly relationship with: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus, Ecuador (see Edward Snowden), Mexico (it seems ).

But the deeper problem here is that people are classified by nationality (and possibly indirectly by religion). Yemen and Libyia might suffer from civil war but any of their nationals living abroad having either citizenship or permanent residency in another (in particular Western) country have usually a pretty comprehensive track record in their countries of residence. Tarring them with the brush of their nationality and not their verifiable track record smacks of a nationalistic, us against them, to some degree xenophobic attitude.

On top of that, declaring that the vetting procedures (all nationals from those countries needed a visa anyway) until now were so insufficient that an immediate stop of visa approvals was necessary but that the Trump administration can figure out how to improve them drastically is simply a case of Trump declaring things not done by him to be a catastrophe and him being able to miraculously improve things. Things can be improved but declaring existing solutions as the worst possible and their ability to bring on vastly better ones is simply another example of Trump creating his own fantasy reality and declaring himself a superman who can solve all problems.

 

[TechGeek76]

There is quite a number of countries the U.S. doesn't have a friendly relationship with: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus, Ecuador (see Edward Snowden), Mexico (it seems ).

But the deeper problem here is that people are classified by nationality (and possibly indirectly by religion). Yemen and Libyia might suffer from civil war but any of their nationals living abroad having either citizenship or permanent residency in another (in particular Western) country have usually a pretty comprehensive track record in their countries of residence. Tarring them with the brush of their nationality and not their verifiable track record smacks of a nationalistic, us against them, to some degree xenophobic attitude.

On top of that, declaring that the vetting procedures (all nationals from those countries needed a visa anyway) until now were so insufficient that an immediate stop of visa approvals was necessary but that the Trump administration can figure out how to improve them drastically is simply a case of Trump declaring things not done by him to be a catastrophe and him being able to miraculously improve things. Things can be improved but declaring existing solutions as the worst possible and their ability to bring on vastly better ones is simply another example of Trump creating his own fantasy reality and declaring himself a superman who can solve all problems.

No matter how many times you reword it, he has legal authority to ban anyone from this country. That is a cold, hard fact.

 

[1applerules1]

I don't get the logic of this travel ban....

Ban people from countries whose citizens have not attacked the US. But let in ones from countries that have....

Iraq had nothing to do with it. and it's to stop terrorists who his as refugees from coming in.

 

[manu chao]

No matter how many times you reword it, he has legal authority to ban anyone from this country. That is a cold, hard fact.

a) There is still such a thing as due process. This is not an absolute monarchy.
b) Just because an action is legal doesn't mean that it cannot be a complete dick move.
[doublepost=1489679905][/doublepost]

Well, if that was the intent, trump failed miserably:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-to...ries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

He did the best he could under the banner of preventing terrorism and without causing too much economic damage.

 

[Starflyer]

He did the best he could under the banner of preventing terrorism and without causing too much economic damage.

Right! He may not be able to ban all muslims but, by god, he will ban the ones that he can, and if only for 180 days. I think you are on to something here.

 

[miniyou64]

I want Apple to stop making great products and just make rainbow watch bands, crappy software, and get involved in politics. Oh...wait....

 

[gaximus]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/06/gregg-jarrett-why-law-is-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

Interesting

 

[TechGeek76]

a) There is still such a thing as due process. This is not an absolute monarchy.
b) Just because an action is legal doesn't mean that it cannot be a complete dick move.
[doublepost=1489679905][/doublepost]
He did the best he could under the banner of preventing terrorism and without causing too much economic damage.

Yawn...This will be the last response to you on this as, again, it's legal. 100 percent LEGAL. You need to start paying attention and stop listening to whomever you are getting your information from.

The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

"(f) 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."
[doublepost=1489680996][/doublepost]

Interesting

What's interesting about it? It's fact.

"(f) 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."

 

[DougFNJ]

[doublepost=1489676217][/doublepost]
Show me which presidents have issued entry bans based on nationality.

Sure:

According to a new Congressional Research Service report entitled Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens, the last 5 presidents have used executive authority to limit or restrict the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the U.S. a total of 43 times.

Ironically, it appears that President Barack Obama used this authority more frequently than any of his predecessors, exercising it a total of 19 times during his two terms in office.

Here's the breakdown of how many times each of the past five presidents issued such orders:

Ronald Reagan - Five times
George H. W Bush - One time
Bill Clinton - 12 times
George W. Bush - Six times
Barack Obama - 19 times

 

[TechGeek76]

Sure:

According to a new Congressional Research Service report entitled Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens, the last 5 presidents have used executive authority to limit or restrict the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the U.S. a total of 43 times.

Ironically, it appears that President Barack Obama used this authority more frequently than any of his predecessors, exercising it a total of 19 times during his two terms in office.

Here's the breakdown of how many times each of the past five presidents issued such orders:

Ronald Reagan - Five times
George H. W Bush - One time
Bill Clinton - 12 times
George W. Bush - Six times
Barack Obama - 19 times

Those pesky FACTS....

 

[manu chao]

Yawn...This will be the last response to you on this as, again, it's legal. 100 percent LEGAL. You need to start paying attention and stop listening to whomever you are getting your information from.

If it is 100% legal, why was the first one stopped by the courts? Ah, because legal laymen know better than highly knowledgeable judges.

And if you ever studied the law, you would know that there are many situations where one part of the law says one thing and another part says another thing. The first amendment that guarantees free speech doesn't have an asterisk on hate speech. If you only looked at the first amendment, there would be no way to outlaw hate speech. Yet hate speech is illegal, showing that if you only look at a paragraph in isolation, you cannot be sure that there aren't other provisions elsewhere in the legal code (which in in case law countries includes court decisions) that modify what that original paragraph said.
[doublepost=1489682398][/doublepost]

Sure:

According to a new Congressional Research Service report entitled Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens, the last 5 presidents have used executive authority to limit or restrict the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the U.S. a total of 43 times.

Ironically, it appears that President Barack Obama used this authority more frequently than any of his predecessors, exercising it a total of 19 times during his two terms in office.

Here's the breakdown of how many times each of the past five presidents issued such orders:

Ronald Reagan - Five times
George H. W Bush - One time
Bill Clinton - 12 times
George W. Bush - Six times
Barack Obama - 19 times

I asked for blanket bans based on nationality, not for any kind of more limited bans.

 

[DougFNJ]

I asked for blanket bans based on nationality, not for any kind of more limited bans.

Ummm those bans were based on nations. Just to quote the order because many posting here obviously haven't read it and just chose to base opinions on the news:

The order imposes a TEMPORARY (this means not permanent) 90 day ban (not 180 days) on people entering the US from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These are countries either torn apart by Jihadist violence or under control of hostile Jihadist Governments.

Can someone please find the word Muslim in this wording? This is the exact language in the order. But it's Trump so it must be bad and horrible right?

Release your taxes Trump! So they illegally find and release his taxes and find he paid a higher rate of taxes than Obama, Bernie Sanders, the Clintons, Warren Buffett, etc etc, and then there was silence, on to the next way to attack him.

It's his first 100 days. Give the man a little slack, or are you rooting for him to fail which means we all fail?

 

[Stella]

law supporting trump immigration

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...immigration-ban-is-clumsy-but-perfectly-legal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-muslim-immigration-ban-the-law-favors-trump-2017-02-07

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-on-trumps-side-with-his-immigration-ban.html

Oops. Facts.

It is not a muslim ban because predominantly muslim countries are not impacted. It is a ban from countries with little or no effective government or databases on population to vet against for determining immigrant identification and background. Despite what a random Hawaiian court says.

Lets face it, trump is attempting to push through a Muslim ban by any means, even if watered down.. that is the real objective.

 

[TechGeek76]

Lets face it, trump is attempting to push through a Muslim ban by any means, even if watered down.. that is the real objective.

Let's face, he's legally allowed. Time to get over it and move on, but it seems some of you just can't.

 

[DougFNJ]

Lets face it, trump is attempting to push through a Muslim ban by any means, even if watered down.. that is the real objective.

Let's face it, ignoring facts, blindly listening to what the media tells you to believe, and regurgitating the same silly talking points over and over doesn't make that non sensical statement valid.

 

[DaveP]

... The first amendment that guarantees free speech doesn't have an asterisk on hate speech. If you only looked at the first amendment, there would be no way to outlaw hate speech. Yet hate speech is illegal, showing that if you only look at a paragraph in isolation, you cannot be sure that there aren't other provisions elsewhere in the legal code (which in in case law countries includes court decisions) that modify what that original paragraph said....

First, how is hate speech defined? Secondly, how is it illegal?

I hate the Pittsburgh Steelers. Oops, lock me up.

 

[Bigsk8r]

If it is 100% legal, why was the first one stopped by the courts? Ah, because legal laymen know better than highly knowledgeable judges.

And if you ever studied the law, you would know that there are many situations where one part of the law says one thing and another part says another thing. The first amendment that guarantees free speech doesn't have an asterisk on hate speech. If you only looked at the first amendment, there would be no way to outlaw hate speech. Yet hate speech is illegal, showing that if you only look at a paragraph in isolation, you cannot be sure that there aren't other provisions elsewhere in the legal code (which in in case law countries includes court decisions) that modify what that original paragraph said.
[doublepost=1489682398][/doublepost]
I asked for blanket bans based on nationality, not for any kind of more limited bans.

Dude, you need to actually read something containing Constitutional facts. I suggest reading this document as it very clearly articulates why the President can do what he is doing (and yes, his predecessors HAVE done too), as well as why it will ultimately NOT be found illegal in any way.

https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf

Peace...