Refugees detained at U.S. airports challenge Trumps executive order

[True Earthling]

https://goo.gl/9625P4

Refugees who were en route to the United States on Friday evening have been detained at U.S. airports and restricted from the country as a result of President Trump’s executive order banning their entry.

Lawyers for two Iraqi refugees detained at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport filed a middle-of-the-night lawsuit in federal court challenging Trump’s executive order as unconstitutional and seeking the release of their clients.

They also are seeking class certification so they may represent all refugees who are being similarly held at U.S. ports of entry. Immigration advocates say at least one refu­gee family is detained at San Francisco International Airport, but it is not clear how many refugees are currently detained at airports nationwide.

[asiliveandbreathe]

1. Someone needs to step up and remove this threat to America NOW!

Instigating, agitating - based on what???? This POS is putting all our lives in jeopardy...think about it..if they came for you - what would you do??? - NOTHING?????? - Do we even know when it is our turn???? - I know I am preaching to the choir....

[HopeAgain]

2. Maybe we should start dismantling Lady Liberty now...

We will need the scrap metal once the trade wars begin anyway.

[Tanuki]

3. Oh, ffs, I am not afraid of them and would gladly let them come stay at my house.

These are not scary people. What a craven coward Trump must be to fear them, or how unspeakably evil to vilify and cause harm to innocent people who only want to escape catastrophe and create a safe existence for their family.

[frazzled]

4. It's illegal

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.

But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.

. . .

Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”

. . .

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.


But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

[virgogal]

6. I thought that Carter banned Iranians in the late 70s---I remember it.

[frazzled]

7. Not the same thing

That equivalency has been circulating on right-wing sites since Trump first proposed it more than a year ago. But it's not true:

President Carter had opted to impose sanctions on Iran, which included a cessation of diplomatic relations, a prohibition on trade, assessment of previously-frozen Iranian Government assets, the cancellation of Iranian-U.S. visas, and a moratorium on new visas (with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations) in response to Iranian terrorists' having invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran five months earlier and taken 50 American citizens hostage:

. . .

Stripped of context (and if readers squinted very hard), President Carter's remarks bore a passing resemblance to Donald Trump's proposal. However, while Carter's action involved a well-defined class of persons (Iranian citizens) being denied entry to the U.S. until a well-defined goal was achieved (the hostages were released), Trump's suggestion was ill-defined in scope and purpose: the latter advocated a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" (which could apply to persons from any country in the world and would require making subjective estimations about their religious beliefs) "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" (a vague and unintelligible goal).

Carter explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to apply pressure to Iran's government release American hostages. By contrast, Trump's proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy . . .

http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/

The argument surfaced initially at the conservative website FrontPage Mag in a post written by Daniel Greenfield before spreading widely. Greenfield’s post looks at some of the actions Carter took in the wake of the Iran hostage crisis, in which more than 60 American embassy personnel in Tehran were held captive by militants for 444 days between 1979 and 1981.

. . .

Experts said that Carter’s actions are best understood in the context of a traditional conflict with a nation-state, something that doesn’t exist in the environment now shaping Trump’s proposal.

"Carter acted after the Iranian government accepted and defended the action by militants who stormed our embassy in Tehran and took our diplomats hostage," said David Martin, a University of Virginia law professor who has written extensively about immigration law. "It was a classic, major, state-to-state confrontation, based on a flagrant violation of diplomatic immunity. Carter invoked a host of counter-measures long recognized as appropriate under international law."

The biggest area of agreement we found between Greenfield and experts is that Carter was responding to a crisis involving a sovereign state, whereas today’s threats come from non-state actors such as ISIS or al-Qaida.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/dec/17/why-trumps-muslim-ban-idea-isnt-really-same-jimmy-/

The real difference (although Trump has tempered his ban to make it country based rather than religion based) is (a) there is no humanitarian exception, as Carter made; (b) it was done as part of a package of sanctions against a nation that had taken American citizens hostage. The ban on visas was used as leverage to release the hostages, and that ban was to be lifted when that occurred. With Trump, he's making a "preventative" action with no humanitarian exceptions on the citizens of various countries in which terrorists may live, but which have not made aggressions against the US. In fact, none of the citizens of countries from which the 9-11 terrorists actually came are banned.

[HoneyBadger]

5. America is as dangerous as Iraq was for them

At this point they need to consider other safer countries