6
   

Trump is trumped again!

 
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2017 01:02 am
@oralloy,
As usual, the significance of the 1886 ruling has escaped you altogether. No surprise there.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2017 08:57 am
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
The ban applies to most of the entire population of the countries targeted.

The ban as written applied to most of the population of the countries targeted, because most people in those countries don't have a relative or a job or school here, so they don't even want to come here. The parts of the ban allowed by the Supreme Court allows most of the people who actually come here to continue to do so.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I looked at the text of Trump's executive order. There was something about allowing students that had already been to school in America. I didn't see a single thing about letting in new students that had not already been here. I didn't see a single thing about jobs other than direct employment by the US government.

The text of Trump's order is not the most important factor. It's the parts of Trump's order which are allowed by the Supreme Court which matter. And the Supreme Court has ruled that Trump's order does not apply to anyone with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. Relationship to a person has been defined as meaning by blood, by marriage, or even step relations. Entities means something established, such as a business or school.

That pretty much leaves refugees without a relative, (60% have relatives here), and people who somehow have the means to move from the Middle East to the US without working here. That isn't many. The Supreme Court knocked down the order's restrictions on most of the people who move here from those countries.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2017 11:15 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
The ban as written applied to most of the population of the countries targeted, because most people in those countries don't have a relative or a job or school here, so they don't even want to come here.

Applies, present tense.


Blickers wrote:
The parts of the ban allowed by the Supreme Court allows most of the people who actually come here to continue to do so.

I am not sure about that. There could well be a significant amount of people who wanted to come but didn't have a connection.

And it appears to me that you are confused about who is covered in the exceptions.

But even if you are correct about who is allowed, it is still a ban against all of those other people.


Blickers wrote:
The text of Trump's order is not the most important factor. It's the parts of Trump's order which are allowed by the Supreme Court which matter.

I've only heard of one change that the courts made to his executive order. He defined close relations as spouses, children, or parents. The courts added grandparents.

I've not heard anything about the courts expanding any other part of his order.


Blickers wrote:
And the Supreme Court has ruled that Trump's order does not apply to anyone with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. Relationship to a person has been defined as meaning by blood, by marriage, or even step relations.

Trumps order defines it as parents, children, and spouses. So far as I know the only court modification of this is the inclusion of grandparents. Are you aware of any expansions beyond that one?


Blickers wrote:
Entities means something established, such as a business or school.

Jobs and acceptance to college were not under Trump's definition of a bona fide relationship. At least not anywhere in the order that I could see.

I can see that the order does allow people with jobs directly for the federal government. And the return of students who have already been in the US for study. But I see nothing about other jobs and nothing about students who have never been here before.


Blickers wrote:
That pretty much leaves refugees without a relative, (60% have relatives here),

Even with the court expansion to include grandparents, it only includes fairly close relatives. Cousins won't be enough.


Blickers wrote:
and people who somehow have the means to move from the Middle East to the US without working here.

I'm not aware of any court expansion of the list to include any jobs other than for the federal government.


Blickers wrote:
That isn't many.

How about people who come here for vacations? I think there are a lot more unconnected visitors than you believe.

And most importantly, how about people who come here planning to die perpetrating a terrorist attack? Trump's order isn't because he is out to make life difficult for college students. He wants to try to stop terrorists from sneaking in. If his order manages to block terrorists without hassling innocent people, that's a good thing.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2017 11:17 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
As usual, the significance of the 1886 ruling has escaped you altogether. No surprise there.

As usual I fully understood everything about the ruling.

Making a vague insinuation that I've missed something (that you've somehow managed to not specify) will not change my complete understanding of the ruling.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2017 04:03 am
@oralloy,
The ruling clearly specifies nationality as a category of discrimination which is unacceptable by the terms of the first paragraph of the XIVth amendment. Whether or not a person is physically present in the United States is not relevant. (That dodge was tried with those detained in Guantanamo to deny appeals for writs of habeas corpus--it failed.) Is that specific enough for you, hot shot? Your understanding is limited to what is acceptable to you in terms of your narrow polemical positions.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2017 05:23 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The ruling clearly specifies nationality as a category of discrimination which is unacceptable by the terms of the first paragraph of the XIVth amendment.

Yes.


Setanta wrote:
Whether or not a person is physically present in the United States is not relevant.

The clause in question specifically applies only to people within the jurisdiction of the government.

I suppose it might be possible for someone to be under the government's jurisdiction without being physically present, but I can't see how a foreigner in another country would fall under the government's jurisdiction just because they seek to visit here.


Setanta wrote:
That dodge was tried with those detained in Guantanamo to deny appeals for writs of habeas corpus--it failed.

I doubt it will fail this time.


Setanta wrote:
Is that specific enough for you, hot shot?

It was much better than a vague reference to nothing. Addressing specific points allowed me to respond to them. Discussing issues is a lot more productive than an empty exchange over whether I understand something.


Setanta wrote:
Your understanding is limited to what is acceptable to you in terms of your narrow polemical positions.

No, my understanding is pretty near infinite.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 10:03 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
[The ban as written] Applies, present tense.

Nope. After it was written, the ban was struck down entirely and then only minimal parts re-instated. All that applies now are those few parts the Supreme Court re-instated or changed.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I've only heard of one change that the courts made to his executive order. He defined close relations as spouses, children, or parents. The courts added grandparents.

As I've mentioned before, the Supreme Court says the ban can NOT apply to anyone who has a bona fide relation to a person or entity in the US. That means a private of public job, a school. Even if someone has a contract to make a speech someplace in the US, the ban does not apply to him.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Jobs and acceptance to college were not under Trump's definition of a bona fide relationship.

Doesn't matter if they were in Trump's order or not, they were in the Supreme Court decision that rescinded parts of the total ban the lower court handed down.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I'm not aware of any court expansion of the list to include any jobs other than for the federal government.

The court did expand the exceptions to the ban to include anyone with a bona fide relation to someone or some entity in the US. Even if what you say is true about relations with people-I'm not sure you are-you are absolutely mistaken about the job having to be a Federal job. The Supreme Court's decision made clear it was any job, even a one night speaking engagement.



oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2017 03:16 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Nope. After it was written, the ban was struck down entirely and then only minimal parts re-instated. All that applies now are those few parts the Supreme Court re-instated or changed.

No. That's not even the order that I'm talking about.

But that isn't what happened with the order that you are referring to either. The courts did the opposite of what you say. They restored all of the order except for limited exceptions.

The executive order that I was referring to is the order that delineates who falls under the Supreme Court's exceptions and who does not. Trump issued this order after the Supreme Court's ruling.


Blickers wrote:
As I've mentioned before, the Supreme Court says the ban can NOT apply to anyone who has a bona fide relation to a person or entity in the US. That means a private of public job, a school. Even if someone has a contract to make a speech someplace in the US, the ban does not apply to him.

No. That is not what it means. President Trump issued an executive order clarifying who falls under the Supreme Court's exceptions, and his order does not say anything even remotely like that.


Blickers wrote:
The court did expand the exceptions to the ban to include anyone with a bona fide relation to someone or some entity in the US. Even if what you say is true about relations with people-I'm not sure you are-you are absolutely mistaken about the job having to be a Federal job.

Trump's order was pretty clear on that matter.


Blickers wrote:
The Supreme Court's decision made clear it was any job, even a one night speaking engagement.

Can you point out the part of the ruling that makes this clear?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2017 03:57 am
@oralloy,
I thought I had the text before but can't find it now. This is what I was referring to though:
Quote:
Officials said those exceptions would be defined narrowly. In a lengthy cable sent to embassies and consulates around the world, officials said that extended family connections would not be enough to evade the President's ban on entry. Parents, including in-laws, are considered "close family," but grandparents are not, for instance. Stepsiblings and half-siblings will be allowed, but not nieces or nephews.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/us/politics/travel-ban-trump-muslims.html

Courts did expand it to include grandparents. But I am not aware of any court expansions other than the one for grandparents.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2017 08:15 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
you are absolutely mistaken about the job having to be a Federal job.

Yes. I guess I was. When I was looking for the text of his revised order from after the Supreme Court ruling, I found the revision that he made after his order was first struck down. Since both revisions had a list of who was excepted from the ban, when I saw the list of exceptions I thought I was looking at the list created after the Supreme Court ruling.

It would be interesting to see the text of his order as revised after the Supreme Court's ruling (the order that was mentioned in the NYT article that I quoted) to see who is under the ban as it is currently being implemented.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2017 04:10 pm
@oralloy,
Those under the ban have been in the news for the past several days.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 06:39:21