Breaking News: Brooklyn Judge Stops Trump’s Immigration Ban
A cheer and toast to the ACLU! When it comes to the constitution, they know their stuff. I read the petition and among their arguments is that Trump is in violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act which does not allow for discrimination based on country of origin. If Trump is going to ban the entry of non-citizens, he has to ban all and not just citizens of 7 countries.
On Friday, Mr. Trump issued an executive order banning immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries from being able to enter the USA (including even green card holders) under the auspices of national security. On Saturday, Mr. Trump was hit with a class-action lawsuit by the ACLU, which argued that this executive order was unconstitutional.
About an hour ago, Judge Ann Donnelly from the Eastern District of New York (federal court in Brooklyn) agreed with the ACLU, and issued a national injunction staying enforcement of Trump’s unconstitutional order anywhere in the country. Under this injunction, no one can be removed from the United States solely by virtue of President Trump’s Executive Order, and the Government must even provide the ACLU with a list of names of people who have been affected.
President Trump’s unconstitutional move was meant to please his followers despite the fact that there have been no refugees from any of…
View original post 75 more words
Posted on 01/28/2017, in Cases, civil rights, politics and tagged 7 countries, ACLU, ban, court order, Executive Order, immigration. Bookmark the permalink. 25 Comments.
We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident 
Human decency wins out. Hurray.
Hugs
LikeLiked by 6 people
Hey David! Yes! Our constitution was defended. Hopefully, our new president has learned that his executive orders cannot violate legislation and particularly, legislation that is written to comply with our constitution.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I can’t believe he would pull something like this on Holocaust Remembrance Day. When we say “Never Again,” we mean it, no matter who it is. Does he and his followers really not see the comparison? Aside from unconstitutional, it is un-American and just plain immoral.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Rachael, in my opinion, Trump’s use of fear of terrorism is what he uses to appeal to his supporters. Yes, some of those who committed mass murder in the U.S. are of the Muslim faith, but national born Americans who purport to being Christian or of no religion have also committed mass murder. Example: Dylann Roof received the death penalty for murdering 9 people.
Bigotry is hypocritical.
The Boston Marathon terrorist used homemade bombs, but all of the others used guns.
Those from predominately Muslim countries are not the problem. The easy accessibility to guns in America is the problem. For example, why did that guy, Santiago in Florida, have a gun when he had mental problems and told the FBI that he was hearing voices?
My hope is that ISIS does not use Trump’s executive order to recruit members.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I find it really odd that Trump names 7 countries where no terrorists have come from but here he has no business dealings instead of naming the countries where the terrorists responsible for 9/11 came from but where he does have business interests.
Strange coincidence?
xxx Huge Hugs xxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
David,
Like you, I don’t get Trump’s logic. The WORST he did was ban people from Iraq. We have troops in that country and as someone said, Trump has now put a target on their backs. No Iraqi in their right mind is now going to work with nor for the American troops.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YOUR WORDS:
“Bigotry is hypocritical.”
“My hope is that ISIS does not use Trump’s executive order to recruit members.”
MY WORD:
DITTO…………………………………………!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Roach,
I hear you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know you do Xena: LOUD&CLEAR!
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/825720672370511873
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sad news.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 4 people
I would write a long comment about this article, but I wrote an article instead. Here it is… my “article comment post for this post” https://theanimalprojectblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/trump-immigration/
LikeLike
Welcome Riley. I see your point in your post, but the ACLU’s petition disagrees with you. It was that petition that 5 federal judges have granted. If you haven’t read it, you can by clicking here.
So, when you talk about obeying the law and the rule of law, Trump’s executive order has gone before federal judges who found sufficient evidence to order a temporary injunction. The orders of the court should be respected and obeyed. If the person in the highest office of the land disobeys the orders of the court, what impression does that give to our citizens?
What Trump’s executive order did was exclude immigrants who have already gone through extreme vetting. They have all the proper documents to enter this country. His executive order also violates Immigration law that forbids discrimination based on country of origin. Now, had Trump banned immigrants from ALL nations, he would not be in violation of current, valid, federal law.
Evidently, Trump’s absence from security briefings keeps him ignorant of things that are even reported in the media; i.e., ISIS is not interested in sending people to America to perform acts of terrorism. Their reason is because guns are so easy to get in this country, that they seek American citizens to take up their cause. Let’s not forget that the man in Florida, Santiago, who killed and wounded people in the airport, is not an immigrant from a Muslim country. He even went to the FBI and told them he was hearing voices and wanted to join ISIS. He had a gun. He used it. People are dead.
So, the problem in that situation was not a radicalized Muslim from another country coming to America to perform acts of terrorism. Could gun control be the problem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, i was unaware that multiple judges voted on this. Thanks for the input!!! 😄
LikeLike
Hi Riley. Since January 20, 2017, things have been happening quickly. There might be more than 5 judges who have ruled against Trump’s Executive Order by now. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bad people with guns are a problem, truly.
LikeLike
Riley,
Bullets do not know bad people from good people, and bullets do not discriminate. They hit who or what they hit and their purpose is to kill. Children have killed themselves and others with guns. Even some adults have shot themselves accidentally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So gun safety and training is needed. It is not a toy that you leave around. People die on-the-job all the time, yet this is not viewed in the same way.
LikeLike
Riley,
I agree about safety and training, but more effective background checks are also needed. Comparing a fatal work accident to a product whose sole purpose is to kill should not be viewed in the same way. Working is a necessity. Having a gun isn’t. Yes, people say they accidentally pulled the trigger, or accidentally shot someone not intended, but guns have one purpose. A bucket accidentally dropped from the 10th floor of a construction project is not a bucket that was invented for the purpose of killing. A trigger pulled on a gun accidentally that enters the body and kills is doing what it was invented to do.
LikeLike
Guns are just tools. To say it is only a weapon, is false. Take a knife for example. It is a wedge. It can be used to open a box, or even kill someone. A gun may be used to hunt, defend, or kill. It all falls back upon agency. It will not kill on its own.
LikeLike
Riley,
The 2nd Amendment has been interpreted to give citizens the right to own guns. I can’t argue with the constitution. People have choices. They can own a gun, or not. I am opposed to guns. I am a Pacifist who is opposed to killing other humans. That’s not for everyone. It’s my personal belief. I own it. There are many other “tools” to use for hunting and/or defending. How did mankind ever exist and hunt and defend without guns? (That’s meant to be sarcastic.)
LikeLiked by 1 person