Since when do federal judges decide the immigration policy of the United States?

Since when do federal judges decide the immigration policy of the United States?

why do you support executive fiat?

It's called judicial review.

Because I voted for the executive.

they don't
Wrong!
Wrong!

Since Obongo appointed all minorities to the benches.

It's not fiat if the power is explicitly granted in the Constitution. You don't know what fiat means, do you?

>explicitly granted in the Constitution

why dont you educate me on that user. What article/section are you referring too?

do you know what explicit means?

Article I Section 8 Clause 4

beautiful

also 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) states:
>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.
Thats pretty fucking explicit

just like i thought you don't know what explicit means

That is explicit but its not the constitution user

Still not fiat, nigger. Go shill somewhere else

so what do you think fiat means /r/thedonald?

This judge was appointed by Bush and unanimously approved by a Republican controlled senate you retard.

also 1 post by this ID

Silly Goys you think only the left employs shills?

That doesn't mean his answer is incorrect you retard.

He referenced Obama appointing minorities in a case involving a non-minority republican judge. He is clearly incorrect.

2edgyforme
Are you aware of how our government works? Have you never heard of checks and balances? Are you 12?

Found the liberal kike shills, which was the point of my post.

Supporting big Don makes you the kike

This image is a load of bullshit and sign of an IQlet. South and central America have sizeable black, white, and asian populations as does Africa, Middle east, and Asia. No country is truly homogenous.

I'm starting to wonder if anyone here actually read the fucking ruling.

Washington State sued because this ruling puts enormous hardship on certain citizens and corporations of Washington State.

In cases like this, the precedent is that the plaintiff must establish that hardship beyond a reasonable doubt AND establish that the order they are arguing against does not provide greater benefit to the nation.

Due to the increased tax burden, burden on higher educational systems, and burden on citizens attempting to travel abroad, the Executive Order clearly imposes lasting hardship on states, and due to the near non-existence of Muslim travellers attacking or mutilating citizens of these states, the balance of the Executive Order vs. the cost of implementation is vastly in favor of the plaintiffs.

It's a cut and dried decision and will be upheld anywhere it is appealed.

Was getting found part of your plan libkike?

>this ruling
should say "this Executive Order"

Wtf I love islam now

yeah total 5d chess!

in your opinion would this be considered executive fiat?

In my opinion you would be considered fat.

Why are so many Yanks so ignorant about their own government?

chemtrails and fluoride in the water?

Your teeth might be rotting out of your face but at least your limey brain isnt

>also 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) states:
>>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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
You did read that? That give the POTUS clear power to hammer immigration as he deems necessary. It also kills any attempt for a judge to rule one way or the other single-handedly on issues of national security. Only the president has that power.

No, it's called jew subversion. The jew subversive "federal judge" who ordered the stay also sperged the fuck out about nigger lives matter on the fucking stand. He's a faggot who needs to be strung up. But you pussies aren't going to do it. So this country will die off.

I hate my skin at this point. You people make me sick.

When you will amerigoys realize you have to violently force your government to stop cucking you, your entire government is designed to brainwash you into submission and make you think you have any sort of say or control over your country.

I am a Brit on vacation btw.

>Would this be considered executive fiat?

Eh, it's iffy. The President is explicitly given the power to pen executive orders that carry the weight of law in order to enforce the laws of Congress. The confusing part here is whether or not Trump's EO was "enforcing a law made by Congress". I'm not sure it is, however you can make the argument that it is Congress' job to protect citizens at the Federal level and that ongoing relations with foreign nations might sometimes necessitate the President extending Executive Orders beyond simply enforcement of exactly what's on the books.

I don't think this is Executive Fiat so much as Executive Overreach. The Executive branch tried to do more than it had the power to and the system of checks and balances worked in limiting this power and maintaining the Sovereignty of Washington State. Seems like U.S. Government as usual to me.

Why make it a bloody purge when we have Trump blowing it all up from the inside.

So we allow the liberals cucks to protest, think they have a voice, etc. Meanwhile Trump is tightening the noose on all aspects of their liberal "Utopia"

Reminder that murder is still illegal even if Trump is in office.
Don`t be the villian, Trump will get his way in the end.

Trump cant do shit you stupid fool, you realize jews still have absolute control over your country.

Read it more closely user. It says

>Whenever the President finds that entry...would be detrimental to the interests of.."

See the, Washington State was explicitly challenging the President's assertion about the harm those aliens would be doing.

Further, law works by following precedent, and a previous precedent was set that the way to judge whether or not the entry of the aliens qualifies as detrimental is in relation to the damage and hardship done to the states in following that order.

Washington won the lawsuit and I see no reason why they shouldn't have considering, again, a near non-existence of Muslim aliens committing crimes in Washington State and the added tax burden, burden on multi-national educational systems, and burden on citizen's of Washington State and their rights to move freely.

>Washington State sued because this ruling puts enormous hardship on certain citizens and corporations of Washington State.

>you might not get to hire a dozen Muslims
>hardship

???

Checks and balances, Einstein. Trump isn't a king.

77's Trumps 11's, ocean nigger.

>corporations that deal with Muslim countries
>executives that need to travel to and from Muslim countries
>schools with multinational programs and multicultural studies
>research groups that do work in Muslim countries

etc etc honestly if you can't imagine how this puts hardship on Washington State you've got bigger problems than Muslims entering the country.

hey thanks for injecting some sanity here user its been missing from Sup Forums for quite some time

Lol no problem. I live in an extremely liberal area and I've gotten ridiculously tired of everyone around me screaming about everything Trump is doing being "illegal" so I've been arguing with all them to show them how most of what he has done is perfectly legal.

And then every time liberals do something Sup Forums screams about how it is also illegal. It's ridiculous. The Government has been like this for a loooong time and will continue to be like this for a long time. Despite it's flaws we have a fairly good one in this country and despite me not liking Trump much the system seems to be working just fine.

Very good point, but unfortunately logic holds little sway in a house of madness.

>and a previous precedent was set
Case number? Not that it is relevant, because since Bush, and even moreso under Obama, the Judicial branch (even Congress itself) was cut out of being needed in matters of national security. I know of no direct case that challenges the decision of the president to solely decide on immigration in regards to national security.

Europe is for >muh superior genes
America is for memetic warfare.

>all this gaslighting
It`s happening and there`s nothing you can do about it lol.

The court referenced two basis for their ruling.

The first was the standard for issuing a temporary restraining order and is as follows:

>To obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must convince the judge that he or she will suffer immediate irreparable harm unless the order is issued.

Specifically in this case, the judge referenced for specific requirements to establish a TRO by a plaintiff:

1. The plaintiff is likely to exceed in a full trial
2. he is likely to suffer permanent harm without an immediate TRO
3. the balance of equities tips in his favor and
4. that an injunction is in the public interest.

Relevant cases are See New Vehicle Bd. of Cal. vs Orrin w/ Fox Co, Winter v Nat Res Def Council, and Stormans inc v Selecky.

Second, precedent set in All for the Wild Rockies v Cottrel found that a TRO may be established if "Serious questions going to the merit were raised and balance of equities tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor".

The judge, I believe rightly so, found that Washington State clearly met these requirements of proof and established a TRO.

Final note: Everyone is freaking out over a TEMPORARY restraining order that may or may not be upheld in a full case.

>likely to succeed
typo

>the 56% white strikes again

Can a state like Texas then sue because immigration from these countries are detrimental? I mean"Washington state" is not "United States", so as long as it can be shown that immigrants described in the executive order are detrimental to everyone, then Washington state can eat a bag of dicks.

That's 60% to you buddy

I like you, user. It's a great change from the constant shit posting.

I have no problems with the restraining order itself. The problem is that the judge no longer has the power to block a presidential measure on Homeland Security without a full hearing to begin with. And even then, with the changes, it is questionable. At best there should have been no direct involvement from this judge that under-minds the will of the president as was worded in the executive order (he clearly laid it out as a threat to security).

As for the precedence in All for the Wild Rockies v Cottrel, I can't even imagine how this comes close to the situation in this judges mind. No presidential executive order was a concern in this case, and no issue of national security was even mentioned.

I fail to see how any of this will hold up.

Well, first, we aren't talking about immigrants, we are talking about travellers. And its very unlikely anyone will be able to show that travellers are causing any sort of damage, since, well, they aren't. Like virtually zero crime from travellers to and from these countries.

But assuming Texas could show that, I think they would still have trouble because they wouldn't have anything to sue about. No order was ever issued ALLOWING travel, since travel is a basic liberty afforded in the 5th amendment of the constitution.

So I doubt anyone will ever be able to find a lawful basis for a TRAVEL ban in the United States. An IMMIGRATION ban is an entirely different matter.

I think the precedent here is far more on the side of "this is doing a lot of damage to Washington State" than "this is outside of the Presidents jurisdiction"

The President had every right to sign the order, but Washington State has every right to seek protection under the law from a Federal order that unduly damages Washington State while providing little if any benefit.

Quit trying to play intellectual over the definition of words.

But travelers overstay their visa dates, so by definition they are no longer travelers, but illegal immigrants. This is why it can be claimed that travelers don't commit many crimes, and that states are not responsible for doing the job of the feds. Liberal states like Washington encourage travel from foreign countries under false pretext to then offer sanctuary status in certain cities. It's a liberal conspiracy to destroy the republic and the Constitution with open borders and shit skins.

I used the term 'immigrants' a little loosely there. The actual law states 'aliens'.

And this isn't really a 'travel' ban... that would mean both coming and going. This merely block foreign nationals from certain countries from traveling to the US, not citizens of the US traveling to and returning from said countries.

So under the 'alien' clause, this judge did over-step his bounds. If those are his cited precedences, this will be a quick trail that should have never taken place to begin with.

As someone who grew up in Washington, it's true that people there don't really mind illegal immigrants. People there are generally educated and well-off, why would they give two shits if a dude from Mexico is there? It has no effect on them and they feel they are being good citizens of the planet by respecting other's struggle for a better life.

That being said, what you just said is so ridiculous its pretty hard for me to not think you are a troll, and a bad one at that.

The travel ban was directly causing problems for Washington citizens and corporations. It was robbing them of money and freedom while giving them nothing in return. Maybe if Washingtonians cared about immigration they would get something out of the deal, but they just really don't. The average Washingtonian's response to immigration concern is "Who cares? Why would I?" So this order to Washingtonians hits them in their wallets and limits their travel opportunities and gives them nothing and that's why they don't like it. Its not a grand fucking liberal conspiracy its the same reason that midwest states don't like immigration, because immigration negatively impacts their people's economic interest.

The question here is whether or not the President should be allowed to cause this burden to Washington State's citizens without proving to them that this order benefits them.

Well it blocked legal green card holders and legal visas, and a doctor who is a citizen was kept out for 2 days before a court hearing ruled that he could come back in. So it effectively was operating as a travel ban, because going to any of those countries was risking not being allowed back into the country.

>troll
Welcome to /pol.

Plenty of other states hate immigration, and have been losing $ because of it. Our candidate won and is making decisions for us, so it's other states turn to eat a shit sandwich.

Well, except for States rights that the republican's have so nicely defended for us over the last 8 years.

But since you don't really yield to rational debate, how about this:

Go fuck yourself, we are still gonna let the immigrants in, and we are still gonna give them aid using your tax money.

Bitch.

Yes, feel the hate. Too bad you left states only have bongs and dildos to defend yourself. The coming civil war will cleanse this nation of your degeneracy. Trump will deport 8 million immigrants and you will watch or be put down.