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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States ( including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
【 在 ziwang (ziwang) 的大作中提到: 】 其他方面法院会制止他,移民方面不会。移民方面,特别是对人还在境外的外国人,法 院基本上是说,国会说什么就是什么,都不违宪。这也是为什么中国移民排期比别的国 家的人长,也不能告政府违宪,违反正当程序(due process)和平等保护(equal protection)。 另外国会已经说了: 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 ...................
The challenge in Seattle court was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas.
【 在 zooie (zooie) 的大作中提到: 】 法官正式的意见周末才会写出来发布。目前是联邦范围内立刻暂停。没有说是违宪还是 其他原因。 The challenge in Seattle court was brought by the state of Washington and : later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration. Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas.
“The judge found that in light of the Trump administration’s statement that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.”
“Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States
【 在 lvxiao (绿小儿) 的大作中提到: 】 “The judge found that in light of the Trump administration’s statement : that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.” “Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States 这傻逼法官是在逗我们玩儿吗
【 在 lvxiao (绿小儿) 的大作中提到: 】 “The judge found that in light of the Trump administration’s statement : that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.” “Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United States 这傻逼法官是在逗我们玩儿吗
其次,有关禁止令是否违法,不光有8 1182(f)所控,还有1965年的移民法。“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”,你来交待这个class是 什么,七国公民but not Christians?dual national?green card holders?大嘴巴 和自己的幕僚朱莉昂尼已经透露了本质是legally ban muslim,这些不参考?
There is a distinction, however, between the constitutional rights enjoyed by aliens who have entered the United States and those who are outside of it. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The decision to prevent aliens fromentering the country is a “fundamental sovereign attribute” realized through the legislative and executive branches that is “largely immune from judicial control.” Chi Thon Ngo v. I.N.S., 192 F.3d 390, 395 ( 3d Cir. 1999), amended (Dec. 30, 1999) (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)).
this is my point 大嘴巴内阁没人懂法律,一会儿包括绿卡一会儿又不包括的,法律只会说aliens
【 在 sunrisearchs (cpu) 的大作中提到: 】 其次,有关禁止令是否违法,不光有8 1182(f)所控,还有1965年的移民法。“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”,你来交待这个class是 什么,七国公民but not Christians?dual national?green card holders?大嘴巴 和自己的幕僚朱莉昂尼已经透露了本质是legally ban muslim,这些不参考? 如果只是书面的禁止令,也许可以通过。美国法律没那么死板,是考虑intention的。
【 在 sunrisearchs (cpu) 的大作中提到: 】 其次,有关禁止令是否违法,不光有8 1182(f)所控,还有1965年的移民法。“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”,你来交待这个class是 什么,七国公民but not Christians?dual national?green card holders?大嘴巴 和自己的幕僚朱莉昂尼已经透露了本质是legally ban muslim,这些不参考? 如果只是书面的禁止令,也许可以通过。美国法律没那么死板,是考虑intention的。
的判例分道扬镳。
很显然我不是川粉,在此提醒非公民不要太放心了。
do you know the first amendment?
已经在美国境内的外国人会受到一些宪法保护,未入境的外国人基本上国会和总统想怎么搞怎么搞。
Do I know the first amendment? I'm a lawyer licensed in two states. What
do you think?
不过也就是服务于大气候罢了,单纯拿判例说事儿就是个屁帘儿
civil rights movement和在境外的外国人没有半毛钱关系。略有发展的方面也就是边
角上给递解和关押已经入境的外国人施加了一些限制。
川普是个异数,你指望最高法院因为这个异数推翻100多年来的判例,那是不可能的。
so...
the first amendment
并非只有境外的可以起诉他。
虽然起诉了也没啥鸟用
protection)。
另外国会已经说了:
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. Whenever the Attorney General
finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (
including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United
States by such airline.
8 USC 1182(f)
中国排期长,是中国人多的问题,和违宪啥关系?
这离禁止外国人穆斯林入境差了10万8千里,而且没有判例支持这样的解释(即第一修
正案禁止对外国人穆斯林在移民方面的歧视)。
现行移民法很显然的在进行本籍国歧视(某些国家排期比其他国家长),这种歧视如果是非移民方面的,对联邦政府而言是被第五修正案正当程序条款禁止的(假设国会通过个法律说中国来的绿卡持有者每个月只能拿1000块福利,英国来的绿卡持有者每个月可以拿2000)。但因为是移民方面的,所以就是歧视你也不违宪。
总的说来,移民方面川普怎么搞都没有什么宪法上的问题。
歧视都是看个体待遇的。你和一个来自日本的绿卡申请者,其他条件都一模一样,仅仅因为你来自中国,他来自日本,你就要多等很长时间,这就是赤裸裸的歧视了,毕竟中国申请人数多又不是你造成的。如果是非移民方面这么搞(比如说每年给绿卡的福利总量不能超过X元,同时来自同一国籍的绿卡持有者加起来不能拿超过7%),绝对是违宪
的。
,哪里的法官没有把你给办了?
办了,就是你不合法。
在某些方面(法律叫suspect class)进行歧视是法院基本不会通过的(法律术语叫这
些歧视要接受strict scrutiny,而基本上strict scrutiny是通过不了的)。race,
national origin(注意这一条), religion是基本的suspect class。
我说的当然不算,你也可以不相信我说的,但你可以把这贴存档,回过头来再看。
不过随便啥东西你都用违宪告人家歧视太扯了吧?人家明说了因为你的国籍所以给你特殊待遇你才可以告。
人家说你人太多导致的呢?
因为川普明确说了他要搞穆斯林所以才被告,attorney general 才辞职,你懂吗
The challenge in Seattle court was brought by the state of Washington and
later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take
on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas.
attorney general 说不仅仅要根据EO还要根据the context. 就是前纽约市长作证的
trump 说的话
唉,你上的宪法课太低级了
问个问题:
好像我听说有律师说可以用trump描述法案的目的的话来说他的EO是对religion的歧视
,不知道这个可不可以?
scrutiny,陈述的原因不重要。当然这是针对非移民方面的。
扬镳。
美国人对religion方面的歧视比较敏感,毕竟是立国之本嘛,没受过法律训练的,或者是没有接触过和移民相关判例的,第一反应是,这怎么行?但是他们不知道,在对待外国人移民入境方面,就是行。
问题是法院不会判他违宪。
claims。过两天看吧,不急下结论
但是这个案子只要往上级走,他就赢不了
我原来讲过,整体毙掉这个EO只有控它违宪。但宪法不保护境外外国公民
所以在违宪上作文章是必输无疑,只要Trump政府向高一级法院上讼,就准赢
所以这个华盛顿法官没走这条路,而是控诉这个EO对华州造成了不可逆转的损失
上次德州等27州诉奥巴马也是用这个理由
但这个理由很弱
它在将来的诉讼中要证明不让这7国人来对华州都有不可补救的影响,这几乎不可能
坦率讲这个法官发这个ruling的时候,都不可能有时间去了解到底是谁被ban了(签证名单细节只有国务院有)。他怎么可能知道造成了影响?
大家都明白,这些法官是在玩政治而不是法律
现在政府肯定在安排律师应诉,胜诉应没问题。问题是时间
Subject,所以可以sue他的eo违宪。
在移民事务上,联邦法官没有真正制衡总统的法律途径
在境外可以一定程度了上寻求领事保护(行政权)
claims不会prevail。我甚至相信因为政治的原因,这个state AG在华盛顿州,在第9巡回上诉法院都有可能赢,但是最高法院推翻自己以前的判例不是那么儿戏的。这个AG在采访的时候说的话都是对他那个身份的人预料之中的。
在美国土地上的person,人在国外的绿卡持有者显然两个类别都不属于,所以没有可赢的constitutional claim。
官一样是终身制的,不能继续升也可以干到自己不想干为止,所以对他个人其实是无所谓的。
,当然有damage,怎么没有constitutional claim.
要sue 不要太容易
constitutional right这个前提上(绿卡持有者),出境后无法回来,是不是构成对你出境权利的损害,很难说,我不觉得能赢。
,暂时出国就不让回来当然可以claim damage.美国的案例法有很大弹性,可以从不同
角度sue,其实最后就是民意立法。
最高法就是墙头草而已
这也是民权律师和法官们在前赴后继的为这个案子奔波的原因,无论成败无否,就是提醒人们现在的后
civil right movement 的社会和100年前不同。不能唯书本唯权威适从。
你把法律学死了
感觉你读法学院背的法律名词不少,领会的法律精神不多
滚出这个帖子一边儿讨狗粮去
外国人入境。
这一系列判例政府到时都会引用的,最高法院的判决不可能脱离这些判例。最高法院明确推翻自己之前判例的情形是少之又少的。一次性推翻100多年来多个稳定判例的情形
那是绝无仅有。绝大多数情况最高法院想偏离之前的判例,也只是说目前这个情况和之前判例中的情况相比有足够的不同性,所以不使用之前判例中的决定。而在100多年来
稳定给予国会在移民方面全方位权力的多个判例加持的情况下,可以这样distinguish
之前判例的余地是非常小的,再加上川普仅仅针对人还在国外的外国人,可以说余地几乎没有。
你太小看判例的作用了。
么定,我们都认为不违宪。
要我说多少次才能理解?说的就是宪法。
这贴留在这里回过头来再看。
that is all we are talking about
Clause
问题是有人双重国籍,同时拥有美国国籍
所以EO违宪。
procedure authorized by Congress, it is due process. 用正常人的话说就是国会你怎么搞都行,都due,就是这么流氓。
这是一系列判例确认的。有兴趣自己看。Ekiu v. US, Fong Yue Ting v. US, US ex
rel. Knauff v. Shaugnessy, Shaughnessy v. US ex rel. Mezei.
要说针对国籍,前有卡特总统在伊朗人质危机后递解美国国内的伊朗籍学生,也是上诉到DC Circuit宣判政府赢,最高法院拒绝复审。
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-in-major-blow-to-aclu-judge-finds-trump-immigration-ban-doesnt-discriminate-against-muslims/
我理解对吗?
that the order was not intended to apply to lawful permanent residents, the claims for injunctive relief by the professors are now moot.”
“Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to the United
States
这傻逼法官是在逗我们玩儿吗
我真希望他知道他在说什么啊
那几个国家的绿卡是被revoke 同时颁布的EO
这EO是针对难民不是针对绿卡的?有病啊
这法官还能更语无伦次点吗
已批签证是否对国家造成损失是显而易见的,多少高等学府的教授、学生,以及医生被禁止入境,你以为是白搭的?
以前是judicial system was played by parties in political way, now it is the political parties were played in judicial way....
总统有权fire 两个州的attorney general 吗
entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would
be detrimental to the interests of the United States”,你来交待这个class是
什么,七国公民but not Christians?dual national?green card holders?大嘴巴
和自己的幕僚朱莉昂尼已经透露了本质是legally ban muslim,这些不参考?
如果只是书面的禁止令,也许可以通过。美国法律没那么死板,是考虑intention的。
There is a distinction, however, between the constitutional rights enjoyed
by aliens who have entered the United States and those who are outside of it. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The decision to prevent aliens fromentering the country is a “fundamental sovereign attribute”
realized through the legislative and executive branches that is “largely
immune from judicial control.” Chi Thon Ngo v. I.N.S., 192 F.3d 390, 395 (
3d Cir. 1999), amended (Dec. 30, 1999) (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)).
造成损失不等于违法或违宪。有多少政府行为的结果是完美的帕累托改进?以这个标准政府直接关了算了。
大嘴巴内阁没人懂法律,一会儿包括绿卡一会儿又不包括的,法律只会说aliens
干脆深蓝州轮着反一次。。。哈哈
法不责众了
看过几条新闻都知道吧。
如果是美国境内的穆斯林和基督徒,在某个非移民的方面穆斯林被政府事实歧视了,那么证明intention+disparate impact穆斯林确实可以赢。
但现在谈的是美国境外的外国穆斯林,以及美国政府对他们的移民入境管制。国会和总统在这方面的权力几乎是不受限制的。站在川普对立面的这些律师的公开发言都
downplay了最高法院100多年来在这个问题上一以贯之的立场的严重性。这也就是我这
个帖子讲的。