Oh boy, here we go

Oh boy, here we go.

>2 Iraqis file lawsuit after being detained in NY due to travel ban
>According to court papers, both men legally were allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump's move to ban travel from several Muslim-majority nations.
The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal. They were still at John F. Kennedy International Airport as of late Saturday morning, one of the lawyers told CNN.
"Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights," the lawyers argue in court papers.

edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/index.html

If (((they))) win the lawsuit, the travel ban is worth less than the paper it's written on.

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

VISAs are not a human right. They're not any kind of right. The executive branch is the VISA granting authority, and it can deny or revoke them for ANY reason. There is not due process necessary is a right (life, liberty, property) is not being denied.

Is there any chance this kikery will stand up in court?

>their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights

As non-citizens, they have neither.

Peoe who ascribe citizens rights to non citizens should be executed.

>visas, meaning they aren't American
>invoking the Constitution, which only applies to Americans

In a sane world this would be thrown out of court sight unseen, and the lawyers penalized in some form for filing frivolous lawsuits.

This. I worked too fucking hard to be naturalized and this shit drives me insane

Trump-appointed federal judges won't make it easy. Also, the whole situation could be seeing as a failure to uphold existing law, not as evidence that the law is unconstitutional. If immigration officials were incompetent, or didn't understand the executive order, and merely erroneously applied it to an existing VISA holder, that doesn't mean the migrant ban is unconstitutional. It just means it doesn't apply to EXISTING VISA holders. Everything else proceeds as intended. Just don't give any NEW VISAS.

Blanket unconstitutionality doesn't follow from this as far as I can see. It's like saying it's unconstitutional to arrest ANYONE for burglary because one person wasn't read their Miranda warning when they were arrested for burglary. Just remember to read the damn warning next time.

Nah

The Constitution doesn't apply to Americans. It applies the the Government of America. It's simply a list of what the government can't do. That's it.

They'll lose

>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.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Zero

>assumes executive branch doesn't have ability to say visa invalid at will.
You don't have a right to visa or travel to the United States. We have the right to say, visa sure, then immediately say no -way get out.

Only anti-American muslims who don't care about western civilization would sue over this.

Welcome Paco. You do not have to go back.

No. A visa may be revoked at any time for any reason. Sorry shitbirds, your visas have been canceled. Time to fuck off back to whence you came.

Of course they will lose, it is anti-constitution for the judge to let them win the court.

From the moment Trump signed it on a paper and disclosed it in the constitution it's an undeniable law. Going against it would be illegal and considered as an act of terrorism.

Of course it will. The first thing that'll happen is that whichever judge it end up in front of will put a stay against the executive order which stops it until the case is seen.

Then Trump melts down about it.

And after that it'll keep getting bounced up higher and higher levels of the legal system until it reached the SCOTUS and, putting aside their various political viewpoints, the ban is hilariously illegal and anticonstitutional.

So yeah, this will last about a week tops and then just provide "activist judges" headlines every few months until Trump gets replaced by Pence.

wat, none of that is how this works

The constitution only aplies to citizens. Having a visa doesn't make you citizen

The executive branch certainly DOES have the ability to cancel a visa at any time. That's not the question. The ONLY question is whether the executive order meant to cancel all visas or only new ones. If Trump meant to only cancel new ones, then the plaintiffs can rightly say they were detained erroneously. But that's the ONLY think they can claim. And if Trump says "No, I meant to cancel all visas, new or existing", then they're S.O.L.

...

This same shit happened when Jimmy Carter revoked Iranian visas in the US. It'll go to court and lose because of broad executive overreach taking precedent. Those mudslimes don't understand that once an order is written, it IS law, regardless of their rights. We had internment camps for Japs during WW2, and a muslim-ban light, they're rights aren't worth shit because visas aren't a right.

change the constitution then, just keep the fuckers out.

The theoretical argument begins with the premise that a government is created for
specific ends and should only function according to specific rules. Seidman explains the
Constitution’s role in the government by stating that “Constitutions are documents that specify
those ends and rules and establish that government actions not justified by the ends and
authorized by the rules are illegitimate.” (Seidman, 2012, p. 82) The “ends” referred to in the
quote are the “ends” in which the government exists to create. I see the Constitution, in
accordance with Seidman’s argument as an instruction manual for the government. A
constitution contains rules and regulations, as well as consequences for disobeying said rules and
regulations. Whether or not there is a direct link between a constitution and civil liberties, and if
they are protected, depends entirely on the content of the Constitution.

yes it is.

Lmao globalists eternally btfo'd

Nope, not a snowball's chance in hell.

Why in the fuck would we need to change the constitution? Foreign nationals have no inalienable right to enter the U.S.. They are allowed to enter only at our discretion.

New laws are built below the constitution not into it. I do not believe executive orders become a constitutional amendment

>Believing our rights come from da gubment.
wew lad

Not always. Actually i do not know if the President of the USA can change Constitutional Amendments alone or has to be voted from the United States Congress.

Here in Greece changes are made in the Parliament voted by the 300 members. It passes through there first. And our Hellenic Constitution is obsolete.

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about

we need to hurry up and bomb the shit out of ISIS

we cant handle refugee politcs and issues any longer

Trump is a retard. You could pick a conservative candidate but no, you went with an orange whoremonger. Now you gonna pay for that faggots.

While they do not come from the government, they are protected by the government and the US government does not protect the rights of foreign nationals in general circumstances.

>executive order is unlawful

Nope.

Fuck off poland

I do not get this shit at all. I've been traveling to the USA a couple of times, even lived tere for a couple of years, and always when a visa was handed to me it was accompanied with the warning that it does not mean I'm entitled to enter, it's just a justification for traveling to and appearing at an US entry point. the immigration officer decides if I can enter. this was made eminently clear, but it is possible I'm just autistic enough to read the legalese with great interest.

I agree, but that's not how it works out in law. I think they apply if you're in the country. That's why illegal immigrants are granted hearings because it's been ruled that they have the right to due process, etc.

>That's why illegal immigrants are granted hearings because it's been ruled that they have the right to due process, etc.

Great, give them due process. We can station immigration judges at all of our international airports. They can have their hearing and be put back on a plane within an hour.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Underage, b&

If they lose the case they should be removed from the US.

Yep.

Nope.

mylis sie

And the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to noncitizens.

your permission has just been ... ... REVOKED

Personally I wouldnt see it as strange at all if restrictions were put in place, if my countrymen or people of my religion started to blow up other people or run them over with cars.

I would be ashamed of my countrymen and make sure to fix the issues at home first. But somehow that basic common sense doesn't apply to islamic states because somehow it turns out to be racist to have a few ounces of common sense.

You should brush up on your civics. The Constitution was written in the context of last 18th century liberal political theory. The Government's only purpose was to protect life, liberty, and property. That's it. The Constitution delineates the ways that government is allowed to do that,and with the 10th Amendment was supposed to stop it at that, leaving the rest for smaller sovereign entities to figure out.

The Constitution did not originally constrain PRIVATE actions, except of course insofar as it gave the government the right to constrain private actions that threaten life, liberty, or property. Everything else was free game for private citizens, and the government was supposed to do nothing else.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” - Amendment X

It's very clear.

The federal government has no powers but those given to it by the Constitution. At least that was the idea of the 1st republic period. Since FDR we're in the 3rd republic, the 2nd being the post-Civil War period until the New Deal.

>violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights
Only citizens have rights, Schlomo

Holy shit

aliens blown the fuck out

What about "They are endowed by their creater..." don't you understand? The Constitution doesn't GIVE you fucking rights. It only restricts government's rights. You have rights by virtue of your existence--"God" according to classical liberal philosophy. All human beings have these rights.

That being said, no one has a right to be in the US other than a citizen.

>came over before ban started

Literally who cares? They come through because they came before the ban started. No new visas.

If non-citizens didn't have rights, then citizens could kill them without penalty.