6 ms·

Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against

Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broad-stroke actions like the travel ban. The quieter legislation passes by unnoticed and (by comparison) unprotested.

simonh 10y ago
I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right to exercise their legal authority. My concern about the presidential order is that it bypasses due process and in this case may even be illegal. It appears it may not even have been shown to the administration's attorneys before implementation betrays a cavalier neglect for legality or the enormous harm this order has done to the reputation of the US as a fair country under the rule of law.
- Fej 10y ago
  Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hajile 10y ago
  US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did (and that has been upheld by the supreme court in the past). See section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
  - doolsing 10y ago
    US law prohibits discriminating based on national origin except under specific circumstances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 (A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did Clearly the federal courts (six different district courts, if I've counted correctly) don't believe that the case is as open and shut as you do, or they wouldn't have aisued restraining orders against the EO, one of the explicit considerationa for which is likelihood of prevailing on the merits. That one section of law appears to be a broad grant of power does not mean that that grant is not constrained by other provisions of law.
  - aerovistae 10y ago
    If you read the many arguments made in the amicus curiae brief[1] that was at the top of HN here 12 hours ago, you would learn quite clearly that there is substantial precedent for requiring the executive branch to use its powers on a rational and discreet basis. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105%20amicus%20tech%20companies.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-...
Maarten88 10y ago
> the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways Having seen some documentaries about Trumps past behavior my cynical expectation would be that he is now plotting to retaliate personally against the judge who "did this", and have him/her fired or otherwise removed.
Consultant32452 10y ago
The last president asked us if it would be okay to bomb Syria. We said no. Then he did it anyways. He bombed them so much that we literally ran out of bombs. This guy screws up some travel plans and suddenly it's a problem. Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. Temporarily not letting them come here!?!?! Monster!!!! I mean, I don't support Trump, nor do I agree with this dumb temporary travel ban, but all this noise about it is clearly disingenuous.
- kazimuth 10y ago
  I mean, bombing Syria does seem farther away, in the geographical (and therefore emotional) sense. Plus, the United States is sickeningly nationalistic, and still carries a hint of pride about its immigrant origins. "This child wanted to come into the U.S., but the cruel President Trump won't let him!" packs more punch than "President Obama issued a drone strike against one side of a multifaceted conflict in a small country you know nothing about." There's also the fact that Obama was on the team that typically opposes military intervention and racism (at least ideologically...), and it's harder to get people outraged at their own side. The Republicans might have had trouble riling up their base with drone strikes on muslims, so they went for other hot buttons. The Democrats, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to sink their teeth into the travel ban.
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    At least you recognize that this is political posturing and virtue signaling and not an actual principled stand in favor of people from other countries. I'm one step more cynical than that. I think this is the butt-hurt media riling people up because their darling lost the election. Oh, and of course ratings. When the news broke via wikileaks that the CIA, under Obama, started the Syrian civil war which as led to half a million deaths it was barely a blip on the radar because the media liked the guy who did it.
    - rgbrenner 10y ago
      The syrian civil war started 2.5 years before US involvement. And just so I understand you correctly.. you're saying the green card holders and other visa holders who had their lives disrupted by this order, the judges who ruled that the order is likely illegal, the 97 tech companies in this article whos lawyers think this is illegal, Sally Yates, ACLU, Cato institute, state AGs in CA, WA, CT, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, NM, NY, OR, PA, VT, VA, and DC... are all acting entirely politically. You're even accusing the judicial branch, including judge(s?) appointed by republicans, of ruling against this order because the dems lost an election?

simonh 10y ago

I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right to exercise their legal authority. My concern about the presidential order is that it bypasses due process and in this case may even be illegal. It appears it may not even have been shown to the administration's attorneys before implementation betrays a cavalier neglect for legality or the enormous harm this order has done to the reputation of the US as a fair country under the rule of law.

Fej 10y ago
Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hajile 10y ago
US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did (and that has been upheld by the supreme court in the past). See section f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
- doolsing 10y ago
  US law prohibits discriminating based on national origin except under specific circumstances. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 (A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > US immigration law gives the president explicit right to do exactly what he did Clearly the federal courts (six different district courts, if I've counted correctly) don't believe that the case is as open and shut as you do, or they wouldn't have aisued restraining orders against the EO, one of the explicit considerationa for which is likelihood of prevailing on the merits. That one section of law appears to be a broad grant of power does not mean that that grant is not constrained by other provisions of law.
- aerovistae 10y ago
  If you read the many arguments made in the amicus curiae brief[1] that was at the top of HN here 12 hours ago, you would learn quite clearly that there is substantial precedent for requiring the executive branch to use its powers on a rational and discreet basis. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-35105%20amicus%20tech%20companies.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/17-...

Maarten88 10y ago

> the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways Having seen some documentaries about Trumps past behavior my cynical expectation would be that he is now plotting to retaliate personally against the judge who "did this", and have him/her fired or otherwise removed.

Consultant32452 10y ago

The last president asked us if it would be okay to bomb Syria. We said no. Then he did it anyways. He bombed them so much that we literally ran out of bombs. This guy screws up some travel plans and suddenly it's a problem. Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. Temporarily not letting them come here!?!?! Monster!!!! I mean, I don't support Trump, nor do I agree with this dumb temporary travel ban, but all this noise about it is clearly disingenuous.

kazimuth 10y ago
I mean, bombing Syria does seem farther away, in the geographical (and therefore emotional) sense. Plus, the United States is sickeningly nationalistic, and still carries a hint of pride about its immigrant origins. "This child wanted to come into the U.S., but the cruel President Trump won't let him!" packs more punch than "President Obama issued a drone strike against one side of a multifaceted conflict in a small country you know nothing about." There's also the fact that Obama was on the team that typically opposes military intervention and racism (at least ideologically...), and it's harder to get people outraged at their own side. The Republicans might have had trouble riling up their base with drone strikes on muslims, so they went for other hot buttons. The Democrats, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to sink their teeth into the travel ban.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  At least you recognize that this is political posturing and virtue signaling and not an actual principled stand in favor of people from other countries. I'm one step more cynical than that. I think this is the butt-hurt media riling people up because their darling lost the election. Oh, and of course ratings. When the news broke via wikileaks that the CIA, under Obama, started the Syrian civil war which as led to half a million deaths it was barely a blip on the radar because the media liked the guy who did it.
  - rgbrenner 10y ago
    The syrian civil war started 2.5 years before US involvement. And just so I understand you correctly.. you're saying the green card holders and other visa holders who had their lives disrupted by this order, the judges who ruled that the order is likely illegal, the 97 tech companies in this article whos lawyers think this is illegal, Sally Yates, ACLU, Cato institute, state AGs in CA, WA, CT, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, NM, NY, OR, PA, VT, VA, and DC... are all acting entirely politically. You're even accusing the judicial branch, including judge(s?) appointed by republicans, of ruling against this order because the dems lost an election?