6 ms·

> President Obama signed a list of countries into law > using the exact list that President Obama signed into law Yes, it's the same list of countries... with

> President Obama signed a list of countries into law > using the exact list that President Obama signed into law Yes, it's the same list of countries... with much, much broader restrictions placed upon them in this instance, to the point that some of the restrictions may violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (point[0], counterpoint[1]). 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... 1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-ex...

cookiecaper 10y ago
It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can trudge up? Would the hearing be fair if Ms. Yates' rule was allowed to stand? No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.
- mwpmaybe 10y ago
  I am merely pointing out the flaw in your argument that the Trump administration's order is in any way acceptable simply because they're working off the same list of countries that the Obama administration used for a past order.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I fail to see the flaw. Many people are pretending that Trump explicitly selected these countries because they didn't interfere with his business interests, or that he selected them specifically because they are home to many Muslims (in fact, the nations with the 5 largest Muslim populations are totally unaffected by the order). The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously identified as terrorist hotspots by President Obama, which fully obviates the implication that Trump selected the countries due to their religious makeup, etc., because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin.
    - mwpmaybe 10y ago
      You are clearly 10x smarter than I am, but I wish you would use your powers for good. Yes, it was clever of then to use the list, because it gives them the cover to do whatever they want to do, knowing full well that people like you and Andrew McCarthy of the National Review would defend their actions using this argument. You must be able see the difference between what the Obama administration did in 2015 and the Trump administration is attempting to do today. The fact that the two orders involve the same seven countries in both cases is irrelevant.
      - varelse 10y ago
        It makes for the same sort of easily repeatable distractoid like bleating that Obama did the same thing(tm) in 2011. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...
    - danso 10y ago
      It's not unprecedented for policies to be applied in phases, starting with a more palatable version before expanding it. > because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin. You're making it sound like Trump was restricted to just that list. Trump isn't a civil servant carrying out the stated orders of the President, he is the President, and is not bound to follow the details of the EO of the previous president.
- matt4077 10y ago
  > It's a matter for the judiciary to determine I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include the protection of the constitution and bill of rights. To leave the defence of the constitution solely in the hands of the judiciary is terribly dangerous, especially considering how politicised that branch has become. > It seems perfectly sensible [..] to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated. There are enough articles out there why it's not reasonable (mostly the fact that there haven't been any attacks from citizens of those countries in the US, that it would have been reasonable to continue the SQ while any review is ongoing, that the review could have been done during the transition etc.) The acting AG's issues where not about "reasonable", but "legal". Specifically – with regards to the actual cases she would have had to defend – the legality of removing people holding permanent residency permits. The illegality of removing green card holders is pretty obvious. To quote the Department of Homeland Security: As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to: - Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law - Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons) - Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions Your Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident As a permanent resident, you are: - Required to obey all laws of the United States the states, and localities - Required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities - Expected to support the democratic form of government and not to change the government through illegal means - Required, if you are a male age 18 through 25, to register with the Selective Service https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/ri...
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Nitpicks over specific laws do not justify invocation of the oath of office. Despite what this thread is trying to pretend, it is not conventional for the AG to play SCOTUS and pre-emptively declare the administration's position indefensible. Ms. Yates has not offered any legal rationale for her position. She is failing to uphold the Constitution by undermining the operation of the executive branch and the authority of the chief executive without a compelling constitutional cause. In principle, you're correct that AGs should decline to participate in the implementation of clearly unconstitutional instructions. However, no such plain and obvious unconstitutionality exists in this case. There's nothing even close. All actual legal complaints raised to this point involve potential collisions with obscure, decades-old laws. It's the judiciary's role to handle that type of conflict.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  >"It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted" That's more than a little hand-wavy and dismissive. In multiple places in this thread you quote various laws that seem to support the legality of the EO. Along comes a law that seems to question it - and your response is to say "oh, well, we'll have to consider whether some obscure law may be contradicted".
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    You may be confusing my posts with someone else's (yes, it appears there are several of us here taking the crater to our karma!). I haven't quoted any laws that portend to give the President authority to make such an EO. I have asserted that based on my understanding of the Constitution, it's reasonable for such orders to fall under the purview of the executive branch and that historically, executive orders are given respect and force of law. But the consistent thread through all of my posts is that Ms. Yates' refusal to uphold her constitutional obligation to support the duly-elected chief executive based on her vague, non-specific claim that the order may be illegal and that the DoJ must "always seek justice" is improper. That's what this topic is about. I'm not a lawyer and I can't argue the intricacies or details of the legality of Mr. Trump's order and I make no attempt to do so.
vivekd 10y ago
opinion columns might not be the best sources of news, here is another article by the NY times which gives a much more neutral review of its legality. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-muslim-ban.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra... With me, I'm noticing my lawyer friends in America seem split on the issue, some think it's legal others thing it is illegal but my reading suggests that it is legal. Yes it does violate laws of congress on the issue, but the constitution gives the president, not congress the power over foreign affairs.

cookiecaper 10y ago

It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted or not and whether that law supersedes the President's authority to issue EOs to the contrary. Not the AG's role, especially since the matter at hand is not prosecutorial discretion but merely the DoJ's ability to prepare a fair legal defense for President Trump's order. Why should a judge not be able to hear what the DoJ can trudge up? Would the hearing be fair if Ms. Yates' rule was allowed to stand? No one denies that President Trump's order is more restrictive, nor that it's inconvenient for the people whose travel plans have been temporarily disrupted. The point is that Trump did not pull this out of thin air. The countries had been previously identified as potential sources of malicious actors. It seems perfectly sensible for a new administration with a significantly different perspective to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated.

mwpmaybe 10y ago
I am merely pointing out the flaw in your argument that the Trump administration's order is in any way acceptable simply because they're working off the same list of countries that the Obama administration used for a past order.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I fail to see the flaw. Many people are pretending that Trump explicitly selected these countries because they didn't interfere with his business interests, or that he selected them specifically because they are home to many Muslims (in fact, the nations with the 5 largest Muslim populations are totally unaffected by the order). The Trump administration wisely chose to use a list of countries that had been previously identified as terrorist hotspots by President Obama, which fully obviates the implication that Trump selected the countries due to their religious makeup, etc., because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin.
  - mwpmaybe 10y ago
    You are clearly 10x smarter than I am, but I wish you would use your powers for good. Yes, it was clever of then to use the list, because it gives them the cover to do whatever they want to do, knowing full well that people like you and Andrew McCarthy of the National Review would defend their actions using this argument. You must be able see the difference between what the Obama administration did in 2015 and the Trump administration is attempting to do today. The fact that the two orders involve the same seven countries in both cases is irrelevant.
    - varelse 10y ago
      It makes for the same sort of easily repeatable distractoid like bleating that Obama did the same thing(tm) in 2011. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...
  - danso 10y ago
    It's not unprecedented for policies to be applied in phases, starting with a more palatable version before expanding it. > because the fact is that Trump did not select the specific countries involved at all, and merely relied on the evaluation codified into law under the Obama admin. You're making it sound like Trump was restricted to just that list. Trump isn't a civil servant carrying out the stated orders of the President, he is the President, and is not bound to follow the details of the EO of the previous president.
matt4077 10y ago
> It's a matter for the judiciary to determine I'm pretty sure any oath of office, including those in the executive, include the protection of the constitution and bill of rights. To leave the defence of the constitution solely in the hands of the judiciary is terribly dangerous, especially considering how politicised that branch has become. > It seems perfectly sensible [..] to temporarily suspend travel to/from such high-risk blocks while the vetting procedures are evaluated. There are enough articles out there why it's not reasonable (mostly the fact that there haven't been any attacks from citizens of those countries in the US, that it would have been reasonable to continue the SQ while any review is ongoing, that the review could have been done during the transition etc.) The acting AG's issues where not about "reasonable", but "legal". Specifically – with regards to the actual cases she would have had to defend – the legality of removing people holding permanent residency permits. The illegality of removing green card holders is pretty obvious. To quote the Department of Homeland Security: As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to: - Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law - Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons) - Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions Your Responsibilities as a Permanent Resident As a permanent resident, you are: - Required to obey all laws of the United States the states, and localities - Required to file your income tax returns and report your income to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities - Expected to support the democratic form of government and not to change the government through illegal means - Required, if you are a male age 18 through 25, to register with the Selective Service https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/ri...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Nitpicks over specific laws do not justify invocation of the oath of office. Despite what this thread is trying to pretend, it is not conventional for the AG to play SCOTUS and pre-emptively declare the administration's position indefensible. Ms. Yates has not offered any legal rationale for her position. She is failing to uphold the Constitution by undermining the operation of the executive branch and the authority of the chief executive without a compelling constitutional cause. In principle, you're correct that AGs should decline to participate in the implementation of clearly unconstitutional instructions. However, no such plain and obvious unconstitutionality exists in this case. There's nothing even close. All actual legal complaints raised to this point involve potential collisions with obscure, decades-old laws. It's the judiciary's role to handle that type of conflict.
FireBeyond 10y ago
>"It's a matter for the judiciary to determine exactly whether an obscure law is contradicted" That's more than a little hand-wavy and dismissive. In multiple places in this thread you quote various laws that seem to support the legality of the EO. Along comes a law that seems to question it - and your response is to say "oh, well, we'll have to consider whether some obscure law may be contradicted".
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  You may be confusing my posts with someone else's (yes, it appears there are several of us here taking the crater to our karma!). I haven't quoted any laws that portend to give the President authority to make such an EO. I have asserted that based on my understanding of the Constitution, it's reasonable for such orders to fall under the purview of the executive branch and that historically, executive orders are given respect and force of law. But the consistent thread through all of my posts is that Ms. Yates' refusal to uphold her constitutional obligation to support the duly-elected chief executive based on her vague, non-specific claim that the order may be illegal and that the DoJ must "always seek justice" is improper. That's what this topic is about. I'm not a lawyer and I can't argue the intricacies or details of the legality of Mr. Trump's order and I make no attempt to do so.

vivekd 10y ago

opinion columns might not be the best sources of news, here is another article by the NY times which gives a much more neutral review of its legality. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-muslim-ban.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigra... With me, I'm noticing my lawyer friends in America seem split on the issue, some think it's legal others thing it is illegal but my reading suggests that it is legal. Yes it does violate laws of congress on the issue, but the constitution gives the president, not congress the power over foreign affairs.