Hawaii judge puts Trump's revised travel ban on hold

So what?
What will this ban prevent against? Nothing! This are issues still happening on US soil and you may ask better, why Donald Trump is not throwing out this scum who recruits for ISIS and brainwash people ... or if being Americans doing so, arrest them.

P.S.
And such thing happen in every Western and Eastern country and they are the real big threat to our democracies ... not these 1 or 3 possible terrorists out of 100 immigrants being Muslims!
This rat piper scum of Islamist must be really fought hard ... but right here we fail too often!

 

You missed the point. All of that happen under Obama's administration. So once again, you're barking at the wrong tree. Pay more attention, please.

 

The judge's ruling is based upon the arguments presented in court, the law, and the US Constitution.

WHAT IS THE LAW?

The authorization for the president to impose a ban or restriction is found in U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

"Whenever the President "finds" is the precondition for suspending or restricting access but a "finding" is not an opinion or arbitrary decision. A finding in law is a "declaration of a fact supported by compelling evidence" but there's been no evidence presented in any of the lawsuits against the first Muslim Ban or this Muslim Ban that simply being a citizen of one of these nations represents any terrorist threat. In fact when the Trump administration attempted to establish that evidence did exist, after the first executive order was issued (that it required before issuing the first executive order) the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found that there was insufficient evidence to support the suspensions.

https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866

While terrorist organization are operating within the borders of some of these countries these are often foreign terrorist organizations and the terrorist organizations in Libya, Somalia, and the Sudan are regional terrorist organizations that don't represent any threat to the United States. Iran, while identified as representing a national security threat, does not represent an international terrorist threat to the United States. Terrorist groups in Iraq (removed from the list), Syria, and Yemen do pose a threat to the United States but that does not establish a terrorist threat based upon the citizenship of these three countries because many of those belonging to these terrorist organizations are foreigners in those countries.

These countries were "identified" based upon their inclusion under revisions to the Visa Waiver Program but the Visa Waiver Program does not address the citizens of these countries or visas issued to individuals from these countries. The Visa Waiver Program addresses foreigners that travel to these countries without a visa such as an Americans that might travel to Syria or Iraq to join the Islamic State, a terrorist organization, and then return to the United States to commit an act of terrorism.

The Executive Order claims that our process for issuing visas to individuals from these countries is somehow flawed but since 9/11/2001 not a single international terrorist has been allowed into the United States to commit an act of terrorism. While terrorist attacks by Muslims have occurred in the United States roughly half have been committed by US citizens and all of them have been identified as "domestic terrorist" attacks where the radicalization occurred in the United States. In some cases individuals that were born in the countries listed were convicted of "terrorism related charges" and not for charges that would establish them as terrorists. Those "terrorist related charges" often had nothing to do with a terrorist threat in the United States (e.g. the two Iraqis from the infamous "Bowling Green Massacre" were not associated with terrorist groups in Iraq before entering the United States and were convicted of "conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda in Iraq" that didn't represent a threat of terrorism in the United States).

THE GOVERNMENT (DOJ) ARGUMENT IN COURT

The DOJ has argued that "States" don't have standing to file the lawsuit. "Standing" is an important issue because the plaintiff must establish that the action creates harm or potential harm that the court can address. In all of the lawsuits against the first (Muslim) travel ban and the Hawaii lawsuit the States have been able to establish that "harm" to the state would occur and that harm establishes "standing" to support the Court's preliminary intervention. The "standing" of the States was upheld unanimously by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the first (Muslim) travel ban.

The DOJ has argued that the President has unlimited authority to impose the travel ban. This has been ruled false in every case because the President is limited in all actions by Constitutional restrictions and prohibitions as well as any limitations of authority established by the law. As noted above the law requires a Presidential "finding" where the "threat" claimed is supported by compelling evidence of the threat.

The DOJ has not presented any evidence that the threat exists. For the DOJ to prevail all it's ever had to do was to present actual evidence of the "threat" that is being claimed as the grounds for the travel ban. To date the DOJ has not provided any evidence that the threat exists and the plaintiffs have presented a deposition providing expert testimony that the travel ban itself actually increases the threat to Americans.

THE CONSTITUTION

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Our laws governing the issuing of visas, and the president's actions based upon those laws, cannot be based upon "religion" as that would infringe upon the First Amendment's protections of freedom of religion.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.4mqso4ax.dpuf

The Fourteenth Amendment establishes that everyone subjected to the authority of our government cannot deny "equal protection" under the law and Constitutional precedent establishes that laws and actions based upon national origin deny equal protection under the law. The "nationality" of a person cannot be the basis for discrimination against them.

LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADMINITRATION

There's only one thing that the Trump administration needs to prove to establish the validity of the (Muslim) travel ban. It must establish beyond dispute that just being a citizen of these countries establishes that the individual is likely to commit an act of terrorism and/or that the current processes for issuing visas to people from these countries is flawed and has allowed individuals with pre-existing plans to commit a terrorist act into the United States. The DOJ must provide the compelling evidence that's required for the "finding" to justify the President's action.

The problem for the DOJ is that the evidence does not exist. If it existed then the DOJ would have presented that evidence instead of it's failed attempt to have the DHS to find any evidence to support the executive order after the fact. The executive order is based solely upon Anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance and that's unconstitutional and fails to meet the criteria of the law granting presidential power.

 

No it does not happen ... how many times more is this nonsense told please?

Obama made only 1 single ban against Iraq right at this time when Iraq was short before being conquered completely by ISIS.
There was, is and will be always a list of unsafe and dangerous countries on which these 6 were put by Obama and even still under Bush too ... aside many other countries too and not all are Muslims. On this list you will find Colombia too due to the drug cartel problems!

Again and again this list is compared to be the same as the ban of Trump ... but it is clearly not!

 

As much as I resist the genial condemnation of the Muslims ... at one point you are simply right:

In all countries in Europe, but also in the USA and Canada, our politicians have slept over the past decades! Islamic terrorism has not suddenly come out of nowhere and the whole environment has been too much under-estimated or simply ignored!
This also has to do with the fact that the far left idiots with their "ecologically cleansed detergent washed brains" everything what can be rated as racial fought and the fear to say true words was big. Also were ... honestly ... often racial crimes done in many crimes and politicians did error in fighting this racist scum by putting everything foreign under full protection ... including worst scum!
I can finally only speak for my country, where the main problem are the so-called "salfists". From their ranks there are the fighters going to Syria and this scum must be fought hard. They totally abuse the religion Islam and deserve no protection just because they are handling somehow religious!

 

The evidence exists in the United Nations' reports as I have already highlighted. Due to this fact, it suggests consensus amongst the international community that these countries are cesspools for violent extremism and terrorism (as detailed in the United Nations reports). As such the President's Executive Order is now consistent with his constitutional duties to implement the ban.

Any Judge that blocks the ban is in essence acting unconstitutionally. This isn't a Muslim ban because many Muslims from other nations are still free to travel to the United States. Any attempt to claim that there needs to be evidence of past terrorist attacks committed by peoples from such nations is encouraging a reactive approach to this global threat. We need to be proactive in addressing these sort of global issues and certainly there is an international consensus that these particular nations are largely failed states that are cesspools for violent extremism and terrorism.

Furthermore extreme vetting doesn't work to the required expectations in order to insure domestic tranquillity as required by the United States Constitution.

 

Perhaps you can state which month during Obama's time, the number of refugees from Iraq was zero? JFI : Trump's ban does not only apply to refugees

 

What happened in Germany recently? 2 terror attacks committed and 1 planned terror attack stopped in Dusseldorf by Muslim immigrants?

 

Two problems.

First of all a ban based upon nationality violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Next is that the Trump administration hasn't produced any compelling evidence of a threat based upon citizenship to the original seven nations because the compelling evidence doesn't exist according to the Department of Homeland Security.

https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866

One serious problem with a president that has zero experience and knowledge of government is that he lacks the historical knowledge of the threats to the United States when it comes to terrorism. In the wake of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks the primary focus of our government was to prevent future international terrorist attacks where foreigners would enter the United States on a visa to commit a premeditated terrorist attack. In initiated significant changes to our visa issuing processes to prevent that from happening and these changes were so successful that another premeditated terrorist attack on US soil has been prevented. The visa issuing processes have continued to be revised whenever improvements could be identified that would make the process even better.

Once the foreign terrorist threat was neutralized by our revisions to our visa issuing processes the Bush administration changed focus to the "Domestic Terrorist" threat because that's a real danger to the American people. A primary focus of our government has been on the radicalization of Muslims already in the United States that can lead to a terrorist attack. It's interesting because they've found that typically the Muslim religious beliefs don't lead to this radicalization. Instead they've found that marginalization because of anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance results in some American Muslims (citizens and non-citizens living in the United States) makes them susceptible to being radicalized.

This is the same anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance that President Trump pandered to as a candidate in stating he would "Ban Muslims" and that's the underlying reason behind his travel bans.

Trump's actions, based upon anti-Muslim prejudice and religious intolerance, increase the likelihood of Domestic Muslim terrorist attacks!

Another interesting fact, something that someone with experience would know is, that as concerned as we are about radical Islamic domestic terrorist attacks, they're not the primary terrorism concern of our law enforcement agencies. Islamic terrorism is "high profile" in the United States receiving extensive media coverage but law enforcement is concerned more about a less publicized terrorist threat.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

Before his death we all recognized that Osama bin Laden was the inspirational leader of international Islamic terrorist attack. He didn't personally commit terrorist attacks but instead inspired other to commit terrorist attacks.

When it comes to the Right-Wing extremists that law enforcement considers to be the greatest terrorist threat in America they also have inspirational leaders. These leaders will never be involved in carrying out a terrorist attack but their actions and words will inspire others to commit terrorist attacks. They've already stood up to make their presence known.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...p-agenda-deconstruction-administrative-state/

We're seeing it in action. Appoint a person that opposes public education to head the Department of Education. Appoint a person that opposes civil rights to be the Attorney General. Appoint a person that opposes environmental protection to head the EPA. Appoint a "corporatist" that opposes workers to be the Sect of Labor. Appoint a business man with no diplomatic history to be the US top diplomat as Sect of State. Appoint a person that's been calling for hatred publically as the chief White House Strategist in Steve "Turn on the hate" Bannon from Breitbart News that's been pandering to the "Alt-Right" extremists for years.

Of course we also elected a president that's a four-time loser as a self-appointed corporate executive with no knowledge of our government, the history of our nation, foreign affairs, economic knowledge, and that was the darling of the white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK and he's unquestionably the inspirational leader of the Right-Wing extremists that represent the greatest terrorist threat to America.

Muslims are not the primary terrorist threat to America.

The Trump White House is the primary terrorist threat to America because it's the inspirational leader of the Right-Wing extremists that represent the greatest terrorist threat we face today. ​

 

Top marks Shiva, an excellent answer that has expressed the issues comprehensively.

I think with the amendments they have made, the law should not be deemed prejudicial specifically to Muslims. The Hawaii judge retained this old view in order to strike it down on Constitutional grounds but I would expect that to be overruled. I don't think the bench will in the end be comfortable about guessing the President's intent, no matter how much song and dance was made in the campaign.

However, there remains the issue of the "finding", and whether there is any logical basis to believe the action will address the perceived risk (i.e "legitimacy" per Baylee-whats-his-face)

 

There are no United Nations reports that claim the people born in these countries represent a terrorist threat.

To use an analogy we could say that there's crime in Chicago but that doesn't imply a person that lives in Chicago is a criminal.
The President has to provide compelling evidence that "citizenship" in these countries establishes that the person is a potential terrorist and Trump's own Department of Homeland Security states that's just not true.

Additionally there's no evidence that anyone born in any of these countries has ever had a premeditated plan to commit a terrorist act in the United States when they were issued a visa.

 

I disagree, they have not entered the state until they pass through passport control. Therefore they are not entitled to equality of treatment.

agreed

I think the higher courts will try to avoid making judgements about the President's state of mind at the time of the order. Absence of evidence should be sufficient.

Agreed. I see a parallel in Christian anti-Semitism triggering Zionism triggering Islamic anti-Semitism. A bad problem is not resolved by bad solutions.

Well, there you go, my previous point exactly.....

 

The United Nations have highlighted that some of these nations in the ban are violent extremist cesspools: "Violent extremists have been able to recruit over 30,000 foreign terrorist fighters from over 100 Member States to travel to the Syrian Arab Republic and Iraq, as well as to Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen." (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/674)

I could go through every country on the ban list, but it isn't necessary to prove the point that Trump's Executive Order to ban some nations from travel into the USA is justified constitutionally in order to protect American citizens and insure domestic tranquillity.

Yemen - A country in the midst of civil war with a Houthis stronghold in the nation. Common slogan of the Houthis organization is "God is great! Death to America! Death to Israel! Curse upon the Jews! Victory to Islam!" (https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/houthis)

Somalia - A country in the midst of civil unrest, strife and war with an Al-Shabab stronghold in the nation. The FBI has already acknowledged the threat of Al-Shabab operating in the USA "The FBI contends that al-Shabab has made an “active and deliberate attempt” to recruit American fighters in person and over the Internet. A 2011 U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security investigation found that al-Shabab recruiters have used mosques and cafes as meeting places to radicalize and recruit." (https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/al-shabab)

As such there is no evidence of prejudicial or unjust treatment here to indicate any sort of discrimination.

 

The judge did not strike down the executive order. The judge issued a temporary restraining order against it. That merely prevents implementation until the case is heard by the court.

Yes, the compelling argument to establish the "finding" is what's ultimately important. The DOJ could have easily prevented the temporary restraining order by simply providing the compelling evidence to establish the finding. The DOJ has had opportunities to do this in federal courts across the nation but hasn't. The federal judges, that are always biased on the side of the government, have wanted to see this evidence but the DOJ has made no attempt to provide any evidence so far. The reason the DOJ hasn't presented the evidence is because that evidence simply doesn't exist.

 

A treasure trove of evidence here: https://www.counterextremism.com/countries

 

This is a FEDERAL JUDGE.

Your citation is worthless.

 

I don't think I understand the question

Neither did Obama's.

 

Well not necessarily. The Federal Judge operates in the United States District Court of Hawaii. The
HAWAI‘I REVISED CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT doesn't differentiate between State or Federal Judges that operate in the State. (http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/court_rules/rules/rcjc.htm)

 

Yes, necessarily. FEDERAL JUDGE.

 

Here you go: "The Commission on Judicial Conduct was established on June 1, 1979, by the Supreme Court of Hawai`i to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct and disability, and has jurisdiction over all justices and judges of the State of Hawai`i." (http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/judicial_conduct/commission_on_judicial_conduct)

So my citation was correct from the beginning thank you very much.

 

You stated that Obama banned (temporary or otherwise) some people (Iraq). So when were they banned and please give evidence with numbers of refugees entering the US which should be zero as you stated that Obama did it to. Presuming you mean the Obama 'ban' in 2011 which only applied to refugee applications, not tourists

 

Dude. Give it up. You're wrong.
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii is the principal trial court of the United States Federal Court System.

The only way to remove a federal judge is via impeachment.. Read the damn Constitution.

 

Hey, don't get upset with me. According to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, The State of Hawaii can ban a Federal Court judge from judicial practice operating in the State of Hawaii. The judge would need to leave the state to continue judicial practice according to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. There is no differentiation between Federal and State Judges practicing in the State of Hawaii as far as I can see on such matters.

 

He did ban some people and then systematically had them removed. In record numbers. To your deafening silence by the way.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article122715474.html

oops.

 

No. NO., NO.

A thousand times NO.

NO.

Geezuz. this is basic stuff, kid.