Posted January 31, 2017
On the topic of travel bans, BKGaming has it far more correct. It is incorrect to attempt to take a sentence out of a legal directive, especially one from 50 years ago and expect it to tell the whole story. While I am not a lawyer, I do have some legal insight. Laws do not work like most laymen believe. They evolve over time via interpretation and rulings of precedent.
One could give many examples straight from the Bill of Rights. Right to bear arms has been defined through multiple rulings over a large period of time which allows bans in banks and churches as well as a limit on sales and types of weapons which may be owned. But by "reading the source material" you'd think that right were absolute.
The same with Freedom of Speech.
So for a layperson to call Trump's actions unconstitutional based solely on one sentence from a 50 year old law is rather silly. Without going into every related ruling concerning Presidential authority and immigration laws, the best way to look at it is through what has been done in the past.
Many times, as BKGaming pointed out, there have been bans on travel from other countries. Cuba had been travel banned for decades. Travel and visas have been restricted on many occasions. These countries have also been put on lists demanding extra scrutiny. Clearly, this action seems to fall in the range of what has been done in the past. This doesn't mean that past laws cannot be argued, this is how new precedents get created, but it's likely he was primarily within his authority. I think at best, small aspects of the action may be ruled against, but I highly doubt this order will be flatly overturned.
As to the contention that green card holders or permanent residents have some right of free travel, that is utterly ridiculous. Sorry to tell you, but even as a U.S. citizen, you do not have that right either. Whenever one crosses a border, you may be detained. Even before 9/11 people got stopped at the border for hours or even detained for longer. Random searches are legal and this applies to both sides of the border. Living near a border to Canada, friends have told me about times they were stopped and detained both going into Canada and coming back (again prior to 9/11). Each of these friends were born here and lived here their entire lives. So this claim that permanent residents cannot be detained is just flat wrong. Sorry, that is not how borders work.
As to claims that decisions cannot be made regarding religion, that is false as well. Religion is a listed factor when it comes to refugee status especially when it comes to risk of persecution in their native countries. Just because people have this false belief that no decision in the country can be made based on religion, doesn't make it true. It's certainly a factor in charges of ethnic or religious intimidation charges. There are also laws which dictate what constitutes a legitimate religion in terms of tax benefits and the like. These issues are not as simple as you wish them to be.
One could give many examples straight from the Bill of Rights. Right to bear arms has been defined through multiple rulings over a large period of time which allows bans in banks and churches as well as a limit on sales and types of weapons which may be owned. But by "reading the source material" you'd think that right were absolute.
The same with Freedom of Speech.
So for a layperson to call Trump's actions unconstitutional based solely on one sentence from a 50 year old law is rather silly. Without going into every related ruling concerning Presidential authority and immigration laws, the best way to look at it is through what has been done in the past.
Many times, as BKGaming pointed out, there have been bans on travel from other countries. Cuba had been travel banned for decades. Travel and visas have been restricted on many occasions. These countries have also been put on lists demanding extra scrutiny. Clearly, this action seems to fall in the range of what has been done in the past. This doesn't mean that past laws cannot be argued, this is how new precedents get created, but it's likely he was primarily within his authority. I think at best, small aspects of the action may be ruled against, but I highly doubt this order will be flatly overturned.
As to the contention that green card holders or permanent residents have some right of free travel, that is utterly ridiculous. Sorry to tell you, but even as a U.S. citizen, you do not have that right either. Whenever one crosses a border, you may be detained. Even before 9/11 people got stopped at the border for hours or even detained for longer. Random searches are legal and this applies to both sides of the border. Living near a border to Canada, friends have told me about times they were stopped and detained both going into Canada and coming back (again prior to 9/11). Each of these friends were born here and lived here their entire lives. So this claim that permanent residents cannot be detained is just flat wrong. Sorry, that is not how borders work.
As to claims that decisions cannot be made regarding religion, that is false as well. Religion is a listed factor when it comes to refugee status especially when it comes to risk of persecution in their native countries. Just because people have this false belief that no decision in the country can be made based on religion, doesn't make it true. It's certainly a factor in charges of ethnic or religious intimidation charges. There are also laws which dictate what constitutes a legitimate religion in terms of tax benefits and the like. These issues are not as simple as you wish them to be.
