3 ms·

Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. The only point of contention i

Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. The only point of contention is that it's Trump that originated the order instead of when Obama the same thing with Iraq for 3 months, and Clinton called for something similar during his 8 years. The countries that are currently (temporarily) banned are effectively failed states, lack an effective government, or are effectively hostile to the US, and lack the infrastructure or cooperation to provide proper background checks for entry into the US. Entry is a privilege, not a right. It is not a religious ban, and it's not a blanket ban. Most people so far delayed have been cleared for entry.

oneplusone 10y ago
They are not the same. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
findK 10y ago
You failed to see this is coming from Stephen Bannon and Jeff Sessions, both hate muslims. But then again.. so might you
OxO4 10y ago
Obama did not do the same thing [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...
- hermitdev 10y ago
  Washington Post as an impartial fact-checker? Surely, you must be joking. WP has been pretty blazen in disregard in their "facts" during the election and have most blatantly been pushing an anti-Trump agenda under Bezos's guide. Obama most certainly did suspend or slow immigration from Iraq for a period, regardless of religion. Difference is Obama only did it for Iraq for 30 days, Trump has named 9 countries for the "ban" for 90 days, none of which is capable or willing to cooperate with background checks. All 9 countries are countries that were known to the Obama administration as either harboring or sponsoring terrorists. There is no religious test here. There is no racial test. Everyone wanting to the enter the US from these 9 countries are all subjected to the same scrutiny.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    All other news sources reported the same thing. This is simply another matter of alternative facts vs. real ones.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    In the text of the EO, "minority religions" are permitted waivers. That would appear to be a religious test.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      Haven't we allowed minority religions facing persecution historically? Is this "I'm a christian so please let me in" or "I'm a christian/wrong kind of muslim (sunni vs shiite) and facing persecution so please let me in"?
      - linkregister 10y ago
        Yes, but you distract from the main issue; religious persecution is one of many criteria for asylum. Now it is the only criterion for a waiver grant. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Sunni/Shia split meets the standard defined in this document (though I agree that it absolutely should). No other reason for persecution is stated. Text: (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > Surely, you must be joking. WP has been pretty blazen in disregard in their "facts" during the election and have most blatantly been pushing an anti-Trump agenda under Bezos's guide Can we please not allow HN to become the type of place where garbage like this is allowed? Pointing out bias is one thing, but the campaign against reputable news sources is ridiculous. If you believe they are wrong then provide evidence, any sort of alternative viewpoint. The wholesale writing off of news (previously reputable) news organizations is nothing more than a brazen attempt to weaken trust in the media and remove their ability to act as a check on government actions. The washington post is "fake news", they can't be trusted, the story they just broke which is clear and reliable evidence of watergate level misconduct is obviously a lie.
matthewmcg 10y ago
An executive agency can be acting within its delegated authority and still be acting unlawfully. An executive action can't violate the subject's* constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act bars "arbitrary or capricious" actions. Several courts have already found that the ban is likely arbitrary or capricious. In other words, the order appears to have been made on unreasonable grounds or without proper consideration. *Some provisions apply to "citizen" while others, including the 14th amendment, apply to "all persons."
- hermitdev 10y ago
  I think you're referring to Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which does not apply to "all persons", but only to citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." People not within our borders that are not also citizens are not within the US's jurisdiction, and those are not afforded the same protection under the Constitution.
  - matthewmcg 10y ago
    Correct, but keep reading.... "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Also yes, the Constitutional status of foreign nationals in U.S. custody within and without U.S. territory is a much litigated rabbit hole.
abiox 10y ago
> Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. i think that's an assertion that a judge would have to establish. the states sued obama over immigration issues and got a 4-4 scotus decision.

oneplusone 10y ago

They are not the same. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

findK 10y ago

You failed to see this is coming from Stephen Bannon and Jeff Sessions, both hate muslims. But then again.. so might you

OxO4 10y ago

Obama did not do the same thing [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...

hermitdev 10y ago
Washington Post as an impartial fact-checker? Surely, you must be joking. WP has been pretty blazen in disregard in their "facts" during the election and have most blatantly been pushing an anti-Trump agenda under Bezos's guide. Obama most certainly did suspend or slow immigration from Iraq for a period, regardless of religion. Difference is Obama only did it for Iraq for 30 days, Trump has named 9 countries for the "ban" for 90 days, none of which is capable or willing to cooperate with background checks. All 9 countries are countries that were known to the Obama administration as either harboring or sponsoring terrorists. There is no religious test here. There is no racial test. Everyone wanting to the enter the US from these 9 countries are all subjected to the same scrutiny.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  All other news sources reported the same thing. This is simply another matter of alternative facts vs. real ones.
- linkregister 10y ago
  In the text of the EO, "minority religions" are permitted waivers. That would appear to be a religious test.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    Haven't we allowed minority religions facing persecution historically? Is this "I'm a christian so please let me in" or "I'm a christian/wrong kind of muslim (sunni vs shiite) and facing persecution so please let me in"?
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Yes, but you distract from the main issue; religious persecution is one of many criteria for asylum. Now it is the only criterion for a waiver grant. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Sunni/Shia split meets the standard defined in this document (though I agree that it absolutely should). No other reason for persecution is stated. Text: (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > Surely, you must be joking. WP has been pretty blazen in disregard in their "facts" during the election and have most blatantly been pushing an anti-Trump agenda under Bezos's guide Can we please not allow HN to become the type of place where garbage like this is allowed? Pointing out bias is one thing, but the campaign against reputable news sources is ridiculous. If you believe they are wrong then provide evidence, any sort of alternative viewpoint. The wholesale writing off of news (previously reputable) news organizations is nothing more than a brazen attempt to weaken trust in the media and remove their ability to act as a check on government actions. The washington post is "fake news", they can't be trusted, the story they just broke which is clear and reliable evidence of watergate level misconduct is obviously a lie.

matthewmcg 10y ago

An executive agency can be acting within its delegated authority and still be acting unlawfully. An executive action can't violate the subject's* constitutional rights and the Administrative Procedure Act bars "arbitrary or capricious" actions. Several courts have already found that the ban is likely arbitrary or capricious. In other words, the order appears to have been made on unreasonable grounds or without proper consideration. *Some provisions apply to "citizen" while others, including the 14th amendment, apply to "all persons."

hermitdev 10y ago
I think you're referring to Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which does not apply to "all persons", but only to citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." People not within our borders that are not also citizens are not within the US's jurisdiction, and those are not afforded the same protection under the Constitution.
- matthewmcg 10y ago
  Correct, but keep reading.... "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Also yes, the Constitutional status of foreign nationals in U.S. custody within and without U.S. territory is a much litigated rabbit hole.

abiox 10y ago

> Good luck, Trump's executive order is perfectly legal within his delegated executive authority, whether you agree with it or not. i think that's an assertion that a judge would have to establish. the states sued obama over immigration issues and got a 4-4 scotus decision.