|
First of all, as I understand it, the constitution only lends due process rights to immigrants or refugees already living here in our country, not immigrants or refugees living somewhere else waiting to come into country. This means I think, that placing a ban or limit on immigrants or refugees living in another country is not against any rights given to them under our constitution, because they don't have any constitutional rights.
Second, they are given due process rights if they are living here, but if by that due process they are found to be a criminal or an enemy to the state, they do not have the right to continue to live here. At the point that they become a legal citizen of our country, then they have to be dealt with here through our system of justice.
Third, I know the crazy things this maniac president has said. I do not like him, I did not vote for him, and I will never vote for him. I think he is unstable and is scary. However, what he is doing, not what he has threatened, in regards to limiting immigrants and refugees, is not anything different than what other presidents have done at different times. It is limited in time and it is limited to just a few countries where the nation states have failed, where we have very little on the ground intelligence and our vetting process is basically made illegitimate because of these conditions.
Fourth, part of the vetting process for a refugee that is claiming religious persecution, is a religion test. If I claim I am a Christian being religiously persecuted and I need to come to your country, but I have no idea who Jesus Christ is or the basic tenets of the religion, then there is a reason to be suspicious of my true intentions of coming to your country. The same way if I say I am Buddhist, Muslim, etc. It is not a test to keep out a certain religion, it is a way to be able to tell whether you are being truthful.
Fifth, what this president has attempted to do with his executive order, is not any different than other presidents both republicans and democrats have done at different times of their presidency. I know he has called for and threatened all kinds of crazy things....but what he is actually doing is not any different.
So the lower court placed a stay on his executive order after two states attorney generals filed a suit claiming the president did not have the authority to place this ban on immigrants and or refugees. Judge Roberts decided to place a stay on this ban until it could be looked at closer and a decision legally made. It was not thrown out. It was paused.
It clearly spells out in the constitution that the president does have this authority. Yes, because of the crazy things that this lunatic has said, it does scare me that the constitution gives him this authority...but I think it does. And in this particular case, with this executive order, I think it is reasonable.
So the federal government filed an appeal in the 9th circuit court. The appeal was about the stay, or the pause placed by Judge Roberts, not the executive order itself. Does the judicial branch of the federal government have the power to pause an executive order, when the constitution clearly gives the authority to the executive branch to issue such an executive order?
The appellate court debated about whether they thought there was a enough of a threat for the president to issue this order. They decided that not enough evidence had been presented to convince them that there was not enough of a threat and decided to support the stay placed on the executive order by Judge Roberts.
First of all, the government did not present this evidence because it was not what was being appealed. It is not that the evidence did not exist. The government's case was about the constitution and the authority to write the executive order. I also think there was some question about whether the two states attorneys had standing in this particular case.
Second, can anyone see the gross overreach of power by this court? These judges are appointed not elected. These judges do not have the access to nearly the intelligence information that would be critical in coming to such a conclusion. Discussing such things in a public court of law would be grossly inappropriate anyway. Frankly, this is scarier to me than Donald Trump and his insanity. Do we want judges to be able to make decisions about national security? That is like going to your plumber and asking him to make a loaf of bread. Clearly not the role of this court.
That is all...Fire away.
|