PDA

View Full Version : Trump’s second travel ban blocked by 2 judges




Firestarter
03-16-2017, 10:23 AM
On March 6, Donald Trump signed a new executive order to ban Muslims, which was planned to take effect today (March 16). It’s really the same travel ban with some minor changes:
1) Iraq is not in the list that consists of the 6 other countries. Of course Iraq has been wonderfully democratic ever since that horrible dictator Saddam Hussein was removed.
2) Green card holders aren’t blocked, foreigners with a legal status to work and live in the USA.
3) People that already have valid visas aren’t blocked.

If the first blocking of the travel ban of the Donald Trump administration was rightfully done (remember that Trump didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court), then this new travel ban – of people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - doesn’t stand a chance.

Washington State, joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon, say the first restraining order should apply to the heart of the new travel ban. They’ve asked federal district Judge James Robart from Seattle to let the temporary restraining order against Trump’s January 27th ban also applies to this new version. Trump’s team didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the blocking of the first Muslim ban travel by Judge Robart.
They use the following legal argument “When a court enjoins a defendant from implementing policies, the defendant cannot evade that injunction simply by reissuing the same basic policies in a new form”.
Robart schedule a hearing yesterday (March 15).
These same states also argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors at universities, reducing tourism and curbing employment.
Also 2 other states have started their own lawsuits against the new travel ban in 2 federal courts — Maryland and Hawaii. Both of these lawsuits complain that the ban contravenes the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and discriminates against Muslims in violation of the equal-protection clause and the First Amendment rule against establishing religion: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/03/back-court

The 9th Circuit on Wednesday refused to reinstate the original ban.
Two Federal judges - in Hawaii and Maryland – have blocked the travel ban before taking effect. They used Trump's own words as evidence that it discriminates against Muslims.
While the Hawaii order only halts the ban temporarily, Chuang's ruling in Maryland took the form of a preliminary injunction, which will remain in effect indefinitely as the case is litigated.
Chuang did not block the entire executive order, because a temporary ban on refugees isn’t necessarily discriminatory. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case also wanted to stop a portion of the order that would reduce the number of refugees allowed to enter the country this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000.
The Trump administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States from terrorism. President Trump’s reaction to the blocking of his second travel ban was:
"This ruling makes us look weak … We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear" - http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20170316/2-federal-judges-find-new-trump-travel-ban-discriminatory

If I understand correctly the number of refugees allowed to enter the USA has been lawfully reduced this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. 110,000 is already much lower than the relative amount of immigrants coming to my home country the Netherlands…
I don’t believe for a second that Donald Trump really tries to ban Muslims from entering the USA; I believe that this is a charade to divert the attention from what is really going on, while marking time for the planned false flag attack at which time the legal system will get the blame for jeopardising the national security of the USA.

Dr.3D
03-16-2017, 10:42 AM
Here's the problem....

They keep telling everybody it's a "Muslim ban" when it is really a terrorist ban.

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 10:51 AM
I think a great next move, if I were Donald Trump, would be to issue another executive order banning travel and immigration from all countries.

Explosive howling would ensue!

It also would address every single one of the bogus "objections" the phony "judges" have vomited up. Let's see them issue a restraining order on that!

And it gives President Trump the absolute moral high-ground (moral in a somewhat twisted sense of the word). "Well, we tried doing it in a limited way. Twice. And insane leftists permanently embedded into the system presumed to 'overrule' it both times. We had no choice but to go all-out and shut down immigration entirely. No choice. They left us no choice." Trump gets what he wants, plus a bullet-proof excuse.

This may, in fact, be what he's been planning all along. Like him or loathe him, he does seem to always be two or three steps ahead.

CPUd
03-16-2017, 10:53 AM
Here's the problem....

They keep telling everybody it's a "Muslim ban" when it is really a terrorist ban.

While also failing to show how banning those countries does anything to stop terrorism.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
03-16-2017, 12:00 PM
bogus "objections" the phony "judges" have vomited up.

These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.

AuH20
03-16-2017, 12:03 PM
These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.

Violence is the final solution. These pigs don't even recognize legal precedent that they ushered forth! No one is voting their way out of this madness.


In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which expressly authorized the president to suspend the immigration of any person, class of people or group of people into the United States for public health, public safety or national security reasons.

Dr.3D
03-16-2017, 12:24 PM
While also failing to show how banning those countries does anything to stop terrorism.
Even if it should be rather obvious, people from countries the U.S. has invaded, are most likely to hate us and would like to get even.

AuH20
03-16-2017, 12:28 PM
So funny.

If you read the Constitutional very carefully, you'll find a passage that guarantees Hawaii a thriving tourism sector.

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 12:29 PM
Even if it should be rather obvious, people from countries the U.S. has invaded, are most likely to hate us and would like to get even.

Yep. Imagine that!

At least somebody remembers the wisdom of Ron Paul. :cool: But did it have to be a giraffe?

AuH20
03-16-2017, 12:33 PM
842430551680266240

PierzStyx
03-16-2017, 12:34 PM
These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.

Is it ironic when someone calling for state violence and state regulation of human movement justified by a collectivist idea of land that all people own their collectivist ideal of a nation calls another person a communist?

Socialists calling others Communist are hilarious for such silliness.

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 12:37 PM
Is it ironic when someone calling for state violence

Oh, has RonPaulGeorge&Ringo called for that?

Show me the quote. Or back off.

PierzStyx
03-16-2017, 12:41 PM
Even if it should be rather obvious, people from countries the U.S. has invaded, are most likely to hate us and would like to get even.

Except, you know, for the part where no one form those countries has attacked the USA.

"Keep in mind, there has never been an act of terrorism successfully carried out in the U.S. by a Muslim refugee or anyone from the six Muslim-majority countries the Trump administration has banned. In very rare cases, individual Muslims, as well as Christians, living in the U.S. have succumbed to ISIS’s seductive online propaganda, converting to a virulent ideology versus a real religion. And most have been caught attempting to leave the U.S. to join the promised “utopian ISIS Caliphate” in Syria."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/323320-trumps-immigration-ban-is-counterproductive-in-war-on


"The original ban, signed late January and knocked down by a federal judge eight days later, was proposed to defend the US from terrorist attacks, despite no individual from those countries having killed a single American in a terrorist attack on US soil since 2001."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-travel-ban-countries-terrorists-immigration-order-a7614701.html


"President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday temporarily blocking people from seven countries from entering the US on visas. The list of targeted countries is Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — all Muslim-majority countries. Trump’s order says that it protects American people from the threat of terrorism.

It doesn’t necessarily do that. But it does show that the new president is serious about putting the Islamophobia that was a central part of his campaign into practice.

That’s because none of the perpetrators of the major US terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam in the past 15 years have come from the nations on that list."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order


In fact, the deepest irony is that the countries which HAVE people who HAVE carried out terrorist attacks against the USA aren't even on the ban.


"Donald Trump’s new executive order, banning immigrants and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries, still excludes countries which sent terrorists came to the US.

The newly-worded travel ban does not include Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the United Arab Emirates - all countries with which Mr Trump did business and from where the 9/11 plane hijackers came."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-travel-ban-countries-terrorists-immigration-order-a7614701.html


What you think is "obvious" is in fact not true.


Not that it would matter if true. Nothing in Natural Law gives you the right to regulate land you do not own privately and directly and nothing in The Constitution gives the President or any branch of the Federal government authority or power to regulate immigration in anyway.

timosman
03-16-2017, 12:42 PM
Yep. Imagine that!

At least somebody remembers the wisdom of Ron Paul. :cool: But did it have to be a giraffe?

It does not have to be this way. What people think is not really that important. We can always bribe some politicians, install a puppet government, and then be greeted as liberators. :cool:

PierzStyx
03-16-2017, 12:48 PM
Oh, has RonPaulGeorge&Ringo called for that?

Show me the quote. Or back off.

Ooooh, did some poor statist get triggered?


How does the State work? It works through the monopoly on violence. Whenever a law is passed it works through violence and the threat of violence. Everything the state does is through violent force of arms and anyone who chooses not to comply is violently attacked and forced to either comply, be beaten, or killed.

When you say the State ought to do something, what you are saying is that if someone doesn't do what you want they should be beaten, imprisoned in a rape cage, or even killed if they refuse to do what you want.

It is no different with immigration than with any other law.

And of course Executive Orders are even worse because they are mere unconstitutional fiat orders from whoever the Murdered-In-Chief happens to be.

TheTexan
03-16-2017, 01:06 PM
Trump just needs to issue executive orders faster than judges can strike it down.

He should go ahead and get started on the next one.

TheTexan
03-16-2017, 01:08 PM
Here's the problem....

They keep telling everybody it's a "Muslim ban" when it is really a terrorist ban.

Yes, this ban is a great ban. The best ban.

The so-called judges dont know what they're talking about.

CPUd
03-16-2017, 01:20 PM
He needs to take those judges to court

Dr.3D
03-16-2017, 01:25 PM
Yep. Imagine that!

At least somebody remembers the wisdom of Ron Paul. :cool: But did it have to be a giraffe?

Would you rather it be an elephant?

/* sniffs for elephants */

TheCount
03-16-2017, 01:27 PM
I think a great next move, if I were Donald Trump, would be to issue another executive order banning travel and immigration from all countries.Do you believe that is a power that the President has and/or should have?

AuH20
03-16-2017, 01:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6WtCY6BnS8

Dr.3D
03-16-2017, 01:33 PM
He needs to take those judges to court
Or maybe fire them and appoint better ones.

TheTexan
03-16-2017, 01:44 PM
He needs to take those judges to court

Charge them with Contempt

oyarde
03-16-2017, 01:54 PM
Trump just needs to issue executive orders faster than judges can strike it down.

He should go ahead and get started on the next one.

I would have everything I wanted typed up and then decide at breakfast what I wanted released three days at a time and go fishing .

oyarde
03-16-2017, 01:57 PM
Do you believe that is a power that the President has and/or should have?
No real need for a President at all if you could get congress and the senate to follow the law . That job could be left unfilled as part of budget cuts.

phill4paul
03-16-2017, 02:00 PM
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

TheCount
03-16-2017, 03:16 PM
No real need for a President at all if you could get congress and the senate to follow the law . That job could be left unfilled as part of budget cuts.

Based on Trump's travel budget, that would be a larger cut than most in his budget.

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 03:53 PM
Ooooh, did some poor statist get triggered? I don't know. Find me one? Then we can cross-examine him.

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 03:57 PM
When you say the State ought to do something

And did he say that the State should do something? Did RonPaulGeorge&Ringo say that? Or are you putting words into his mouth?

Obviously you are putting words into his mouth.

Point. Set. Match. Done.

I still love ya, Pierz!

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 04:00 PM
Do you believe that is a power that the President has and/or should have? Who cares?

Are you caring now what I believe?

If so, great, but let me tell you who doesn't:

1. Trump
2. Congress
3. The courts
4. Anyone with influence in Washington, D.C.

AngryCanadian
03-16-2017, 05:09 PM
Or maybe fire them and appoint better ones.

Firing them would be better after all those judges were hand picked by the Obama admin right?

TheCount
03-16-2017, 05:52 PM
Who cares?

Are you caring now what I believe?

If so, great, but let me tell you who doesn't:

1. Trump
2. Congress
3. The courts
4. Anyone with influence in Washington, D.C.Then why discuss anything at all? Should just close down the forum until such time as we're all Congressmen.

helmuth_hubener
03-16-2017, 07:04 PM
Then why discuss anything at all? Oh, to bounce ideas around, cross-pollinate, maybe become better friends and better people.

Anyway, my post was more in the spirit of analysis and prediction, not recommendation. Sorry if I confused you.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-21-2017, 05:55 AM
These Communist assh0les are doing jurisprudence like it's an Internet comments argument. If you don't have the facts or the law, just stamp your feet and call everyone a racist.



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151206114541-donald-trump-dec-5-horizontal-gallery.jpg http://www.mimages.co.za/files/imagecache/watermark/files/CABAA-CCBCC-BACJG-GI_thumb.jpg[/QUOTE]

Firestarter
03-25-2017, 10:31 AM
The Trump administration has appealed the federal court order issued in Maryland (that blocks part of the president’s revised travel ban).
The federal appeals court (fourth circuit) has set arguments for May 8, which makes it unlikely that it will decide soon: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-travel-ban-appeals-court-236435

The Trump administration didn’t appeal the Hawaii ruling, so that one isn’t challenged.
Some say they won’t challenge that one because that would be decided by the ninth circuit court that already ruled against the first travel ban. Maybe they have a bigger chance that the fourth court will rule in their favour.
To me not appealing the other order, confirms that the whole travel ban is a charade. Even if the Maryland order is squashed in appeal, the Hawaii ruling blocks the executive order.

CPUd
03-30-2017, 04:10 AM
Hawaii judge extends national halt on Trump's travel ban

Jaweed Kaleem

The Hawaii federal judge who brought President Trump's revised travel ban to a national halt this month extended his order blocking the ban's enforcement.

The move Wednesday sets the stage for the Justice Department to appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson's original order halting the travel ban was issued March 15, a day before the ban was to go into effect, in the form of a temporary restraining order.

At a hearing in Honolulu on Wednesday, federal lawyers asked Watson to either dismiss that order or narrow the restrictions to apply to fewer parts of the travel ban.

Instead, Watson said he would turn the order into a preliminary injunction, which has the effect of extending his order blocking the travel ban for a longer period.

Watson said he would keep intact the restrictions on the travel ban -- a block of its 90-day moratorium on travel to the U.S. from nationals of six majority-Muslim countries and its 120-day pause on new refugee resettlement.

If the Justice Department appeals the case, it will be heard in the same court that upheld a national halt to Trump's first travel ban last month after a Seattle federal judge ruled against it.

The administration has already appealed to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals a Maryland judge's more limited March 16 ruling that stopped enforcement of the travel order's country-specific ban.

Both the Hawaii and Maryland judges found Trump's executive order to discriminate against Muslims. They used the president's campaign statements promising to suspend Muslim travel to the U.S. as evidence of the order's anti-Muslim bias.

Government lawyers have argued that the president is not singling out Muslims but instead acting within his power to restrict immigration and safeguard national security while better vetting procedures are developed to prevent potential terrorists from entering the U.S.

Trump has said he'll take the case over the travel ban to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-hawaii-judge-trump-travel-1490816530-htmlstory.html

timosman
03-30-2017, 04:50 AM
Trump should close Gitmo and send everybody to Hawaii.

CPUd
03-30-2017, 05:55 AM
http://i.imgur.com/4x7Kp0T.gif

timosman
03-30-2017, 05:55 AM
http://i.imgur.com/4x7Kp0T.gif

CPUd - a man without class.

CPUd
03-30-2017, 06:04 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ZLW2CD8.jpg

Firestarter
04-03-2017, 08:43 AM
On March 29, the Hawaii federal judge extended the blocking of Donald Trump’s (second) travel ban.
On March 30, the Donald Trump administration (finally) appealed the Hawaii court order to the ninth circuit that earlier decided to uphold the blocking of the first travel ban by Judge Robart.
According to District Judge Derrick Watson the ban will harm the state’s universities, tourism and the imam of a Honolulu mosque (who joined the lawsuit).

According to Richard Primus, professor constitutional law at the University of Michigan:
What a ruling in 4th Circuit in favor of the administration would do is create a split in authority between federal courts in different parts of the country. Cases with splits in authority are cases the U.S. Supreme Court exists to resolve https://apnews.com/8d0564dbe9e840c7a7bf638c6e9c47ff/us-judge-hear-arguments-longer-block-travel-ban
(archived here: http://archive.is/0DGCn)

Maybe somebody should tell Donald Duck to appeal to the Supreme Court directly, before people find out that the whole travel ban is a charade.

Firestarter
04-06-2017, 08:28 AM
As a reaction to the blocking of the travel bans of the Trump administration, Trump has proposed an “extreme vetting” policy of foreigners to combat “terrorism”.
This includes inspecting the mobile phone and passwords to social media of a visitor to the US.

Gene Hamilton (counsellor to homeland security secretary John Kelly) recently explained this policy:
“If there is any doubt about a person’s intentions coming to the United States, they should have to overcome – really and truly prove to our satisfaction – that they are coming for legitimate reasons”.

John Kelly said at a homeland security committee hearing in February:
“We want to say for instance, ‘What sites do you visit? And give us your passwords,’ so that we can see what they do on the internet. If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come” - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/04/trump-extreme-vetting-visitors-to-us-share-contacts-passwords

Firestarter
05-10-2017, 04:03 AM
Here’s some more information on the appeal of the (blocking of) Trump’s travel ban for people from 6 Muslim countries.

On May 8 was the hearing where the Trump administration defended the ban, by claiming that it’s not a Muslim ban…
According to acting solicitor general Jeffrey Wall Trump's statements about Muslims prior to taking office are not evidence of discrimination.

Wall emphasized that the revised travel ban was written after the President listened to judges' concerns that the original executive order discriminated against Muslims, obviously President Trump is not the same as the Trump wannabee President that made these racist remarks:
"(Trump) made it clear he was not talking about Muslims all over the world, that's why it's not a Muslim ban"”.
So we should believe anything that Trump says, even if his statements contradict each other (thank God for doublethink)...

Such a defence would have been more convincing if there had not been a campaign statement on the official Trump campaign website from December 7, 2015 until May 8, 2017 that explained the Muslim ban:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
(…)
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine.
See the archive (from before these statements were removed on May 8): https://web.archive.org/web/20170508054010/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration (https://web.archive.org/web/20170508054010/https:/www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration)

The Trump administration has also appealed the second blocking of the travel ban by US District Court Judge Derrick Watson (from Hawaii). Watson's decision was broader in scope and also paused Trump's 120-day ban on refugee admissions.
The hearing by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle in this case is scheduled for next Monday: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/4th-circuit-court-of-appeals-travel-ban-hearing/

The only way that this “travel ban” can be accepted by the federal courts is if Trump’s team can prove that the 6 countries should be blocked because they harbour terrorists.

Yemen is one of the countries on the travel ban.
If you want to learn who the real “terrorists” are, take a few minutes of your precious time to read about the literal starvation of millions of “Muslims” in Yemen: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?500409-The-Starvation-of-Yemen/page6

Firestarter
05-31-2017, 09:26 AM
On 25 May, the Virginia-based Fourth Circuit of appeals upheld the March ruling from the Maryland District Court, by ruling against the appeal by the Donald Trump administration.

Following the announcement of the revised order in March, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that the “principles” of the second ban “remain the same”.
This is, from a legal point view, very damaging.

US attorney general Jeff Sessions, after the ruling by the Fourth Circuit, confirmed that the administration will appeal to the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump vowed the same when his first travel ban was blocked (and didn’t)…

In a rare move, the court had a full hearing, meaning 13 judges had heard arguments – a 10-3 majority voted against the travel ban.
For most cases in appeal, a 3 judge panel listens to arguments and makes the decision. On rare occasions, the 3 judge panel will kick the case to the full 13 judge Court.
In this case the full court listened to arguments and skipped the 3 judge panel completely. That hasn't been done since 1998, when the court considered a law that would require minors to let their parents know before they could have an abortion.

Because the Supreme Court will finish its term in late June, a full appeal will likely not be heard for another 4 months.
According Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond: “That means the court might not hear the appeal until it returns for the new term in October”.
There is a possibility that the DoJ will ask for a specially arranged session because of urgency: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/trump-travel-ban-blocked-federal-appeals-court

Here’s the full judgement of 25 May 2017 (205 pages): http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/read-travel-ban-ruling/index.html


The DoJ has also appealed the even broader injunction by the federal court in Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is expected to rule shortly in that case.
This will be judged by the regular three-judge panel.
Theoretically the Ninth Circuit can refuse to rule on the parts of the travel ban that are already blocked by the ruling by the Fourth Circuit, because even if they rule in favour of the appeal, it’s still blocked by the Maryland injunction.
The only way for the DoJ to get the travel ban in effect soon, is by filing an emergency motion: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/whats-next-in-the-travel-ban-lawsuits/

Firestarter
06-14-2017, 04:29 AM
On Monday morning June 12, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban (EO2), affirming the ruling by a Hawaii federal judge blocking large portions of the ban.
Unlike other courts, the judges found first and foremost that the ban violates a federal immigration law that prohibits discrimination based on nationality and didn’t have sufficient justification as well. For these reasons they didn’t opine on whether the ban (also) violates the constitution.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the administration will press for Supreme Court review:

President Trump knows that the country he has been elected to lead is threatened daily by terrorists who believe in a radical ideology, and that there are active plots to infiltrate the U.S. immigration system — just as occurred prior to 9/11.

The DoJ has already appealed the Fourth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is likely to decide this month whether it will review the Fourth Circuit decision.
According to constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine law school, the Supreme Court will probably rule by the summer of 2018, although it could speed up that timeline.
According to Stephen Yale-Loehr, immigration attorney and law professor at Cornell University, the Supreme Court might find it easier to reject the travel ban based on a violation of existing law (like this ruling by the Ninth Circuit) rather than constitutional grounds (like the earlier ruling by the Fourth Circuit): http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-9thcircuit-travel-ban-20170530-story.html


In my opinion (as I don´t see any reason for claiming that the nationals of 6 Muslim countries are “dangerous”) the most interesting in this court ruling is that it also dismisses the restriction of the amount of refugees coming to the USA this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000.
Restricting the amount of refugees to 50,000 can’t be considered racist, so I don’t see how this is in violation with the US constitution, while one could argue that importing foreigners takes away the jobs of US citizens, which is “detrimental to the interests of the United States”…

According to the court, EO2 doesn’t give any explanation to why importing more than 50,000 refugees is “harmful to the national interest”.
The basis of this part of the court order appears to be that the President can increase the number of refugees, but cannot “decrease the number of refugees to be admitted mid-year”. The number of 110,000 refugees for 2017 was already decided upon during the Obama administration.
Here´s the full court ruling (86 pages): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/12/us/politics/document-Read-the-Ninth-Court-of-Appeals-Ruling-on-Trump.html?_r=0

Firestarter
07-30-2017, 08:25 AM
More than a month ago, on 26 June, the DoJ of Donald Trump achieved a (partial) victory in the blocking of EO-2, the second, revised travel ban on immigrants from 6 “Muslim” countries: Syria, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen.

According to the Supreme Court, the US government can block all migrants from those 6 countries, without a "bona fide connection" to a person or entity in the USA. In other words, only foreign nationals with relatives in the USA, or who’ll attend school or work in the USA are allowed entry.
That is the situation for as long the case is pending in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will review both cases (Hawaii and Maryland) in October 2017 - the government had not asked for more speed.

Donald Trump wrote in his reaction:

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0.


Here’s the full 26 June ruling, only 16 pages (see the following excerpts): https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3877451-Travel-Ban-16-1436-l6hc

Page 9
The Clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017. (The Government has not requested that we expedite consideration of the merits to a greater extent.)

Pages 11, 12
But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.
The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.
And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . ha[s] no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.
(...)
Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former category. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.
We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c). The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii.
In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.

Page 13
C
The Hawaii injunction extends beyond §2(c) to bar enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions and the §6(b) refugee cap. In our view, the equitable balance struck above applies in this context as well. An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security. See supra, at 9–11; Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 (1981).


Justice Clarence Thomas predicted accurately in June that the Court's "compromise" decision would prove unworkable:

The compromise will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits.

A federal judge in Hawaii ruled that the administration's decision to keep out some foreign nationals with close family members (like grandparents) but not others (like spouses) defied common sense, and isn’t in line with the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.
The DoJ then appealed to the Supreme Court, to place an immediate freeze on the lower court's decision.

On 19 July, the Supreme Court rejected this appeal, meaning that (for example) grandparents can’t be denied entry.
This means that, for now, all grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law can’t be denied entry into the USA, even if they’re from one of the 6 blocked “Muslim” countries: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/us-supreme-court-partly-rejects-trump-on-travel-ban/article35733496/


The 50,000 maximum of migrants that are allowed entry into the USA under EO-2 until 30 September, was (only) reached in the second week of July.
This confirms that the entry of migrants into the USA since Donald Trump became president has slowed down considerably (and is much lower than the number of migrants imported by the EU): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512056-Number-Of-Refugees-Admitted-To-U-S-Drops-By-Almost-Half-13-000-25-000

I guess that no lawyer has argued that being starved to death, like is happening in Yemen at this time, could be a reason for entry into the USA…

Firestarter
10-19-2017, 06:17 AM
The story continues...
When I started this thread, I didn’t know that according to the Replacement migration plan of the United Nations, the European Union has to import huge amounts of migrants, but not the US.
Besides that, Canada plans to triple its population by the end of the 21th century to 100 million: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513280-UN-Document-From-2000-Exposes-Global-%91Migration-Replacement%92-Solution-To-Developed-World-Demog

On 28 September 2017, the Trump administration issued a new executive order to replace the previous (second) travel ban, which would take effect last 17 October. It dropped 1 country (Sudan), and added Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea. The new ban restricts people from 8 countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.
This makes it not a “Muslim ban” anymore, as North Korea and Venezuela are included...
An important difference with the previous travel bans is that this one is designed to be indefinite.

The ban was challenged, and US District Judge Derrick K. Watson from Hawaii, who also blocked Trump's first travel bans, issued a new restraining order (1 day before it would take effect). His decision blocks the ban on all targeted countries except North Korea and Venezuela, as the travel ban for these countries weren’t challenged.
On 17 October, the latest travel ban was also blocked by US District Judge Theodore Chuang’s from Maryland, which also doesn’t cover North Korea and Venezuela.
The new ban was also challenged in the courts of Washington State, Massachusetts, California, Oregon and New York.

Watson wrote that the ban goes against the Immigration and Nationality Act and “plainly discriminates based on nationality” and that many parts of the ban are “unsupported by verifiable evidence”.
Judge Watson decided that the new order:

suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries” would harm U.S. interests.

does not reveal why existing law is insufficient to address the president’s described concerns.

Watson also said the ban:

contains internal incoherencies that markedly undermine its stated ‘national security’ rationale. Numerous countries fail to meet one or more of the global baseline criteria ... yet are not included in the ban. For example, the president finds that Iraq fails the ‘baseline’ security assessment but then omits Iraq from the ban for policy reasons.
Iraqis are instead subject to additional vetting, which isn’t blocked by the judge.

Chuang’s block of the ban, was more limited. It said the administration could not enforce the ban on any person with a “bona fide” connection to the US, such as close relatives who live in the country.
This is very similar to the earlier ruling by the Supreme Court that decided that the (second) travel ban could take effect, besides for those with a “bona fide” connection to the US.

Arguments in front of the Supreme Court in the appeal of the Hawaii case were set for 10 October. But justices dropped the case because the prior (second) ban had expired and was replaced by the new one.
Maybe the Supreme Court didn’t make a definite decision, so that these legal entanglements can go on indefinitely: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-travel-ban-hawaii-20171017-story.html