Fourth Circuit Court Refuses To Reinstate Trump's Travel Moratoruim

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

townhall
Matt Vespa
Posted: May 25, 2017 2:13 PM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/05/25/fourth-circuit-refuses-to-reinstate-trumps-travel-moratorium-n2331800

President Donald Trump’s revamped executive order on immigration didn’t change enough, according to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to reinstate the order. The most controversial provision is the so-called travel ban (really a moratorium) on a handful of predominately Muslim countries. The Fourth Circuit said the order discriminated on the basis of religion. The showdown is likely to be settled by the Supreme Court (via NYT):

    The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., on Thursday refused to reinstate President Trump’s revised travel ban, saying it discriminated on the basis of religion. The decision was a fresh setback for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

    Mr. Trump had narrowed the scope of his first executive order, issued in January, in response to an earlier appeals court decision halting it. But the basic flaws in his approach remained, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled.

    The case is now likely to go to the Supreme Court.

The president’s first crack at the order sparked a legal battle with Washington State’s attorney general, who successfully halted the order. The second drafted order tweaked some areas, specifically the ambiguity regarding green card holders, but it still faced legal challenges from the Left.

[DiogenesLamp]

 The Fourth Circuit said the order discriminated on the basis of religion.

A sh*t I do not give.   Under the original and correct understanding of the US Constitution,   there is nothing wrong with deliberately keeping people out of the country on the basis of their religion,  especially this vicious killing cult known as "Islam."   


The President can discriminate for any reason he sees fit.   He can chose   whatever criteria he likes for excluding people from coming into this country,  and he does not have to justify it,  nor bow to what any court thinks on the subject. 


It's about time Trump told these judges to go F*** themselves,  and that he will deliberately ignore whatever they had to say on the subject. 

[berdie]

If it were on the basis of religion, would Indonesia not be included?

This is  junk  (cleaned up term to get from being censored).

[Mesaclone]

A sh*t I do not give.   Under the original and correct understanding of the US Constitution,   there is nothing wrong with deliberately keeping people out of the country on the basis of their religion,  especially this vicious killing cult known as "Islam."   


The President can discriminate for any reason he sees fit.   He can chose   whatever criteria he likes for excluding people from coming into this country,  and he does not have to justify it,  nor bow to what any court thinks on the subject. 


It's about time Trump told these judges to go F*** themselves,  and that he will deliberately ignore whatever they had to say on the subject.

Even if the order DID decide who could enter the country based on religious affiliation...which it clearly does not...where in the constitution does it forbid a President from discriminating based on that factor when establishing immigration policy?

The courts have no business inserting their "opinion" on policy over the opinion of the elected Executive...all they need do is determine if any portion of the constitution, based on a specific and literal reading, has been violated. They don't get to comment on if its good or bad...that is absolutely NOT their role.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Legislating from the bench.

cornell law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions By President

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
 
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

[Hoodat]

A sh*t I do not give.   Under the original and correct understanding of the US Constitution,   there is nothing wrong with deliberately keeping people out of the country on the basis of their religion,  especially this vicious killing cult known as "Islam."   


The President can discriminate for any reason he sees fit.   He can chose   whatever criteria he likes for excluding people from coming into this country,  and he does not have to justify it,  nor bow to what any court thinks on the subject. 

It's about time Trump told these judges to go F*** themselves,  and that he will deliberately ignore whatever they had to say on the subject.

Agreed.  Trump took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, even when judges won't.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

As for Trump's EOs violating Constitutional 1st Amendment/Freedom of Religion excuses from this activist Court:

Why Won't Obama Follow The Law And Use A Religious Test For Refugees?
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/11/18/wont-obama-follow-law-use-religious-test-refugees/

It's not a violation.
It's a Requirement to qualify for Refugee admittance, and these Syrian Muslims do not Meet The Requirement.

[excerpt]

Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]

The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery).

To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them…