3 ms·

You didn't quote a law. For violating the establishment clause, I heard about that and regarded it as laughable. E.g., the US has lots of institutions for ess

by graycat 10y ago

You didn't quote a law. For violating the establishment clause, I heard about that and regarded it as laughable. E.g., the US has lots of institutions for essentially any religion on the planet. So, no way can actions at the border for immigrants "establish" a state religion in the US.

tptacek 10y ago
For anyone who listened to either the district court proceedings or the CA9 appeals court hearing on the stay, no citation to a law would be necessary; the whole thing turns on the interaction between the law you cited and the one that limits it and forbids religious discrimination. Rather than have me (poorly) explain the hearings to you, I think you should just take an hour to listen to them directly. Again: I think you're going to find that the analysis you just presented doesn't hold up well. There are issues with the CA9 stay --- standing, and nationwide applicability --- but they're not based on the idea that the President can simply declare Muslims dangerous.
- graycat 10y ago
  > the one that limits it and forbids religious discrimination. What "one" law? I gave a clear reference to a law that clearly says that the POTUS can block anyone he "deems" whatever -- he can block for essentially any reason or no reason. You claim that there is another law that limits the law I quoted, but you did not name such a law or give a reference. Name your law, and I'll read it. Maybe after reading your law, I'll also listen to the judges argue that the law I listed does not justify what Trump did.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Sorry, but this sounds backwards; instead of relying on HN comments for your information, I recommend instead listening to the CA9 proceedings --- which, once again, are largely about how the analysis you just provided is inadequate.
    - graycat 10y ago
      I found the other law the 9th mentioned, 1152. It never mentions religion. I quote part of 1152 below. Okay, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GfzISGJo7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GfzISGJo7Y I listened to the arguments before the Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit. The arguments mentioned both 8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 and 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Section (f) of 1182 has been quoted in this case, including by me in this thread. So to address one of your claims, Q. Does 1152 limit, modify, constrain, weaken section (f) of 1182? A. Apparently a little: 1152 has in part: > (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. But clearly the part of this law with "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence" is nonsense because just try to get into the US if you are from North Korea or Iran. Lots of luck! One of the judges mentioned this point. Next, if the US denies a Visa to a US alien outside of the US based on some of "race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence", does that person have standing to sue in the US courts? I doubt it. Why not? The US Constitution does not provide legal right to US aliens outside of the US. The law 1182 is mostly about the POTUS protecting the US, and 1152 doesn't restrict the POTUS from protecting the US as in 1182. The court kept asking if the POTUS could block all Muslims? Apparently 1152 and 1182 don't say he can't. E.g., the POTUS might notice that radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, that all radical Islamist terrorists are Muslims, and that until he can tell the difference between a safe Muslim and a dangerous one he can block them all. Maybe the 9th Circuit would like to spend a few years in legal cases on that point. To help such a case, when some e-coli is detected in a four ounce sample of 10 tons of hamburger, we block all 10 tons. In line with section (f) of 1182, The POTUS might notice lots of evidence that lots of Muslims believe that their religion demands that they regard everyone else as an infidel and kill or convert them and, thus, admitted to the US would be a risk to US national security. Or, a violent religion is not just a religion but is violent and can be banned from the US because it is violent even though its practitioners believe it is a religion. The hearing had lots of wacko nonsense: (1) E.g., suppose I'm in the burka business; the Trump executive order (EO) will reduce the number of Muslim customers for my business; so, I have standing to challenge the EO as harmful to my business. The EO should be blocked until we have a court case where I can show the damages to my business. Nonsense. (2) The establishment clause is > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; So, in Yemen I create a new religion that worships death for everyone else, claim that the EO blocks my "free exercise" of my religion in the US; thus the EO should be struck down as unconstitutional. Gads. (3) The judicial role is to say what the law says. So, each time the POTUS wants to use a law, we need to have long legal cases to question in court what the heck the law means. So, the POTUS can't use a law unless every possible wacko objection to the law has spent months in the courts and been struck down. So, we don't have any laws at all until, one law at a time, the Judicial Branch has their say, modifications, vetoes, etc.? More nonsense. (4) Can't just block all Muslim aliens outside the US from entering the US because, as mentioned in the hearing, there is "religious motivation". Nonsense. The law 1182 says that he can block people for reasons he "deems" .... That's darned broad. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that aliens outside the US have rights, i.e., a right to have their religion ignored when they want to enter the US. Instead, both current practice, e.g., keeping people from North Korea out in spite of 1152, from 1182 and "deems" the US can block immigrants on eye color, ability to run a 100 yard dash, or anything or nothing. Aliens outside the US have zip, zilch, and zero rights under the US Constitution. Apparently the courts want to claim that some huge range of legal cases can change the meanings of all the laws passed by Congress. There be monsters and chaos. In that case, in general, the POTUS can't do anything because anything he does might hurt someone; for each POTUS action legal cases could go on for years. Nonsense. Net, so far the most reasonable explanation is that this whole EO case and its appeal is a bunch of lawyers making a mess just so that they can stick it to Trump -- tie him up in endless legal nonsense -- because they don't like him. Maybe Trump's approach now is to have some major fraction of all the best lawyers in DC write him a new EO that not even the 9th Circuit dare question.

by graycat 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

For anyone who listened to either the district court proceedings or the CA9 appeals court hearing on the stay, no citation to a law would be necessary; the whole thing turns on the interaction between the law you cited and the one that limits it and forbids religious discrimination. Rather than have me (poorly) explain the hearings to you, I think you should just take an hour to listen to them directly. Again: I think you're going to find that the analysis you just presented doesn't hold up well. There are issues with the CA9 stay --- standing, and nationwide applicability --- but they're not based on the idea that the President can simply declare Muslims dangerous.

graycat 10y ago
> the one that limits it and forbids religious discrimination. What "one" law? I gave a clear reference to a law that clearly says that the POTUS can block anyone he "deems" whatever -- he can block for essentially any reason or no reason. You claim that there is another law that limits the law I quoted, but you did not name such a law or give a reference. Name your law, and I'll read it. Maybe after reading your law, I'll also listen to the judges argue that the law I listed does not justify what Trump did.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Sorry, but this sounds backwards; instead of relying on HN comments for your information, I recommend instead listening to the CA9 proceedings --- which, once again, are largely about how the analysis you just provided is inadequate.
  - graycat 10y ago
    I found the other law the 9th mentioned, 1152. It never mentions religion. I quote part of 1152 below. Okay, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GfzISGJo7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GfzISGJo7Y I listened to the arguments before the Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit. The arguments mentioned both 8 U.S. Code § 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152 and 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Section (f) of 1182 has been quoted in this case, including by me in this thread. So to address one of your claims, Q. Does 1152 limit, modify, constrain, weaken section (f) of 1182? A. Apparently a little: 1152 has in part: > (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. But clearly the part of this law with "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence" is nonsense because just try to get into the US if you are from North Korea or Iran. Lots of luck! One of the judges mentioned this point. Next, if the US denies a Visa to a US alien outside of the US based on some of "race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence", does that person have standing to sue in the US courts? I doubt it. Why not? The US Constitution does not provide legal right to US aliens outside of the US. The law 1182 is mostly about the POTUS protecting the US, and 1152 doesn't restrict the POTUS from protecting the US as in 1182. The court kept asking if the POTUS could block all Muslims? Apparently 1152 and 1182 don't say he can't. E.g., the POTUS might notice that radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, that all radical Islamist terrorists are Muslims, and that until he can tell the difference between a safe Muslim and a dangerous one he can block them all. Maybe the 9th Circuit would like to spend a few years in legal cases on that point. To help such a case, when some e-coli is detected in a four ounce sample of 10 tons of hamburger, we block all 10 tons. In line with section (f) of 1182, The POTUS might notice lots of evidence that lots of Muslims believe that their religion demands that they regard everyone else as an infidel and kill or convert them and, thus, admitted to the US would be a risk to US national security. Or, a violent religion is not just a religion but is violent and can be banned from the US because it is violent even though its practitioners believe it is a religion. The hearing had lots of wacko nonsense: (1) E.g., suppose I'm in the burka business; the Trump executive order (EO) will reduce the number of Muslim customers for my business; so, I have standing to challenge the EO as harmful to my business. The EO should be blocked until we have a court case where I can show the damages to my business. Nonsense. (2) The establishment clause is > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; So, in Yemen I create a new religion that worships death for everyone else, claim that the EO blocks my "free exercise" of my religion in the US; thus the EO should be struck down as unconstitutional. Gads. (3) The judicial role is to say what the law says. So, each time the POTUS wants to use a law, we need to have long legal cases to question in court what the heck the law means. So, the POTUS can't use a law unless every possible wacko objection to the law has spent months in the courts and been struck down. So, we don't have any laws at all until, one law at a time, the Judicial Branch has their say, modifications, vetoes, etc.? More nonsense. (4) Can't just block all Muslim aliens outside the US from entering the US because, as mentioned in the hearing, there is "religious motivation". Nonsense. The law 1182 says that he can block people for reasons he "deems" .... That's darned broad. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that aliens outside the US have rights, i.e., a right to have their religion ignored when they want to enter the US. Instead, both current practice, e.g., keeping people from North Korea out in spite of 1152, from 1182 and "deems" the US can block immigrants on eye color, ability to run a 100 yard dash, or anything or nothing. Aliens outside the US have zip, zilch, and zero rights under the US Constitution. Apparently the courts want to claim that some huge range of legal cases can change the meanings of all the laws passed by Congress. There be monsters and chaos. In that case, in general, the POTUS can't do anything because anything he does might hurt someone; for each POTUS action legal cases could go on for years. Nonsense. Net, so far the most reasonable explanation is that this whole EO case and its appeal is a bunch of lawyers making a mess just so that they can stick it to Trump -- tie him up in endless legal nonsense -- because they don't like him. Maybe Trump's approach now is to have some major fraction of all the best lawyers in DC write him a new EO that not even the 9th Circuit dare question.