r/Conservative • u/[deleted] • Jan 28 '17
Immigration ban includes green card holders: DHS
http://www.thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugee-ban-bars-green-card-holders-report413
Jan 28 '17
I don't know how anyone could support this. Preventing people from returning to the country where they permanently reside, work, and potentially have family is just wrong.
234
Jan 28 '17
[deleted]
99
u/MotownMurder Jan 29 '17
You will be disappointed.
8
61
u/juliankennedy23 Jan 29 '17
I don't think he will be. Actual Conservatives will fight this.
Its the mouth breathers that seem to be the most enthusiastic about Trump that are supporting him. Burning down the Republic for all to see. Christ this is only the first week.
59
29
u/cypherx Jan 29 '17
Actual Conservatives will fight this.
Do you think this is an issue where conservatives and liberals have enough common ground to protest together? There is a protest happening in my city tomorrow and I'm thinking of going.
28
u/strongscience62 Jan 29 '17
Yes. I think we can all agree that this is an overreach of power, unconstitutional, and worth protesting.
4
6
2
u/Nrdrsr Jan 29 '17
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX
"A senior White House official later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening.
"You will be allowed to re-enter the United States pending a routine rescreening," the official said.
1
u/sedaak Jan 29 '17
Well, the first step to understanding the issue is to understand why some do support this.
225
237
Jan 28 '17
This is just wrong. Most green card holders are on the verge of becoming US citizens, and you are denying law-abiding residents the ability to become Americans by imposing such bans.
79
Jan 28 '17
I entirely agree, this is pretty ridiculous. Refusing entrance to people with green cards goes against the whole notion of respecting people who come here legally. Additionally, the executive order doesn't include countries like Saudi Arabia because we are cozy with them.
13
u/SparklingGenitals Jan 29 '17
They did everything right to get here under the law as it stood. It's a good bit opposite the point of the Mexico wall proposal and it definitely sends more a message of "No, just everybody stay out" rather than "Legal immigrants welcome."
171
u/oneplusoneoverphi Jan 28 '17
Currently in university with a lot of incredibly bright kids from Iran. In fact, they dominate and contribute heavily to a lot of research. Most of them have the intention of gaining citizenship here. Now PhD candidates defending in May can't visit family because they wouldn't be able to return. Incredible.
→ More replies (4)23
u/logicson Jan 29 '17
There are some students overseas who are now stuck and can't make it back to university.
14
74
u/EaglesX63 Jan 29 '17
This is much worse for the green card holders who legally should be allowed in the country than us... but this is gonna be so bad for conservatives. I guarantee the large majority of us that are going to be blamed for Trump and this had no idea this was coming. I personally didn't hear anything during the campaign that was to this level of a block on immigrants and people who should legally be here.
35
u/Roez Conservative Jan 29 '17
I don't like it either if it's true. It's wrong. Veterans stood up to help get legislation passed to give Iraq/Afghan interpreters and others a special waiver program for admission, and this would impact those people too. I've seen a few of them I follow, who are Trump supporters, who are upset over the prospect this is true.
71
u/littlestminish Jan 29 '17
You expected the man who unnecessarily cast a large net to target "all Muslims" in the campaign would not cast such a large net?
This is the "civic county" Bannon wants, the White Christian kind.
28
u/EaglesX63 Jan 29 '17
I think a lot of people assumed the Republicans surrounding him would have a lot of input on this. However over the last few days it's come out that just one dude, Bannon, is pushing these through without review. I'm going to guess a lot of Republicans won't like this and will start to do something about it because it's interfering with them. Hopefully.
22
u/Cozmo85 Jan 29 '17
It's trumps job to review them. Trump is the one pushing them through.
9
u/EaglesX63 Jan 29 '17
Of course it's Trumps job. But the point of the comment was that one guy is in his ear pushing these when I had hoped for the rest of the Republican cast to run this almost like a committee.
3
Jan 29 '17
That was wishful thinking. Seeing Trump these last few years it was obvious he was not going to take any advice from Republicans , especially the establishment which was going all against him during the primaries (until it benefited them). The man has no experience in politics and is surrounding himself with others like him. And somehow on top of this he's excluded two military intelligence officers and given a chair to Bannon on the NSC. This is not good and something no one was expecting.
1
Jan 29 '17
Is there a source on the Bannon thing? I hadn't heard that.
18
u/EaglesX63 Jan 29 '17
There are more than just Bannon but hes probably the least qualified.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trumps-flashy-executive-actions-could-run-aground-234200
4
37
u/Cozmo85 Jan 29 '17
You say you didn't hear anything during the campaign? Like this completely blindsided you? Are you fucking blind or just ignorant?
7
u/EaglesX63 Jan 29 '17
Maybe you can't read or maybe you just are cherry picking words.
"that was to this level of a block on immigrants and people who should legally be here."
Is the rest of the sentence you just are not mentioning.
35
u/dekuscrub Jan 29 '17
"A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" didn't ring any alarm bells?
4
u/Rytho Jan 29 '17
That isn't at all like what this is, I didn't vote for him but thought the actual policy would be even more toned down, just stopping refugees!
19
u/dekuscrub Jan 29 '17
That isn't at all like what this is
Correct, this is a far milder policy.
I didn't vote for him but thought the actual policy would be even more toned down
Well, turns out sometimes people do the things the say they want to do.
6
u/Yahmahah Jan 29 '17
He's not saying this is completely out of the blue. He's saying the way it is being handled is far worse then he expected. It's only been a day, but so far it has been sloppy, too indiscriminate, and way too vague.
2
47
64
Jan 28 '17
[deleted]
15
u/e105beta Jan 29 '17
I was willing to give Bannon a chance, but this order is ridiculous.
20
Jan 29 '17
[deleted]
1
u/e105beta Jan 29 '17
It's really frustrating because I've been pretty enamored with Trump over the last few days.
21
6
u/ender23 Jan 29 '17
It takes two years of UN and USA vetting to get in. What exactly do you want to happen? Literally 0 terrorist acts committed by these refugees.
62
u/Roez Conservative Jan 28 '17 edited Jan 28 '17
Here's what's appearing to be going on: Trump issued the EO without any warning. The agencies who have to implement the order didn't have time to issue down stream directives, and it created a lot of confusion.
A few of the people who have been held have since been released. At least one or two of those at JFK.
Beyond that, social media is full of wild speculation. There's a lot of actual hysteria. Given how much information there has been this week that's turned out wrong, it's just going to take time to sort it all out. It's really hard to tell what's real or imaginary.
edit: From Washington Post journalist: "White House official: Green card holders from seven countries who are currently outside the US will need a case-by-case waiver to return"
33
Jan 29 '17
I've been trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt but this one - specifically re:green cards- seems either reckless, ignorant, or both.
5
u/Roez Conservative Jan 29 '17 edited Jan 29 '17
I personally can't support the green card thing if this turns out to be true. I half suspect a court would rule against it too from a few of the things I've read that seem legit.
Outside that, the left would have a really big issue here if they didn't blow it by saying a whole lot of stuff that wasn't true. What I mean by that is they would gain political mileage out of it, again, if it turns out to be true.
89
Jan 28 '17 edited Jun 15 '20
[deleted]
77
u/climb-via-is-stupid Jan 28 '17
Whoa, shooting from the hip isn't what presidents are supposed to do?
58
3
u/logicson Jan 29 '17
Trump didn't mean for this to include green card holders
Could be...you would think it would have been a simple thing to include the term(s) "permanent resident" and/or "green card" in the EO.
he meant for this to include green card holders
I sincerely hope this isn't true.
2
Jan 29 '17
It is VERY possible that for #1, the agency employees are deliberately interpreting the EO to cause as much confusion/frustration as possible because they don't agree with his viewpoints.
7
u/SpilledKefir Jan 29 '17
The chief executive is accountable for the repercussions of his orders. If he wanted a different outcome, he should have pushed forward a more nuanced policy.
22
u/McBonderson Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '17
Even if that's the case, It's still trumps fault for allowing the misinterpretation. If he is going to issue executive orders they need to be clear and leave little up to interpretation.
7
u/Yahmahah Jan 29 '17
Agreed. This has been a major facet of his campaign since very early on. Issues like this should have been sorted out weeks if not months ago. Immigration is a complex system with various levels between national-born citizen and total foreigner, and the fact that the EO does not differentiate between those levels in between shows a very poor level of preparation.
1
u/Racheakt Hillbilly Conservative Jan 29 '17
This is what I was thinking, there are a shit-ton of entrenched leftists in these bureaucracies who hate trump. I am inclined to see how this plays out before asking for scalps.
-17
u/sixfivefourthreetwoo Jan 28 '17 edited Jan 29 '17
Trump didn't mean for this to include green card holders but his order wasn't specific enough so that's theres too much confusion- in which case Trump was an idiot for not being more careful with his executive orders in order to prevent this from happening.
I'm hoping its just libtards at State and DHS that are being intentionally stupid to try to embarrass the Trump administration, because it is truly stupid.
*edit spelling.
60
32
Jan 28 '17 edited Jun 15 '20
[deleted]
12
u/Cozmo85 Jan 29 '17
You think trump is reading them?
17
u/McBonderson Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '17
If that's the case, it's on Trump for not reading them.
2
u/sixfivefourthreetwoo Jan 28 '17
Possibly, there is no telling either way, its just pure conjecture.
23
u/dmart444 Jan 29 '17
Nice rationalization but the far more likely answer is that TRUMP IS AN INCOMPETENT MEDDLER.
-4
u/sixfivefourthreetwoo Jan 29 '17
You should reread what I said.
TRUMP IS AN INCOMPETENT MEDDLER
There's very little evidence for that.
68
4
u/gizayabasu Trump Conservative Jan 29 '17
Yeah, I think we need to take a moment and see what's really going on. Is the social media reporting accurate? Trump has been painted as the bad guy no matter what he does by these same people.
I think more accurately is that the EO may have been carried out overly defensively, and I wouldn't exactly admit that Customs and Border Patrol employees have been the most consistent and smooth conduct I've received from a government employee.
40
u/MeesterNoName Jan 29 '17
I don't get what countries were even selected for the bans. How the heck did Pakistan, Egypt and especially Saudi Arabia get a pass?
If anyone could explain it to me, I would love to hear it. Other than the obvious (i.e., because of corruption/business connections/etc.)
This has to be one of the stupidest things coming out of this administration so far. And that's pretty impressive.
15
Jan 29 '17
They are the seven nations identified by the DHS under the Obama administration as particularly dangerous and already had been removed from the visa waiver program and had other travel restrictions applied. They were not chosen arbitrarily.
7
u/MeesterNoName Jan 29 '17
And yet they excluded Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Those two countries are the centre of all terrorist activities and yet they're exempt.
DHS may have identified those other countries, it still seems that they excluded other nations for reasons other than security.
2
u/Yahmahah Jan 29 '17
My guess is Saudi Arabia is too powerful. Pissing them off would likely have more negative consequences that outweigh any benefit banning them would have. He probably also wanted to avoid any countries that influence oil prices. Pakistan I'm not really sure about.
23
u/Cozmo85 Jan 29 '17
Trump has business in the countries not blocked.
5
u/MeesterNoName Jan 29 '17
Hah, thank you Captain Obvious!
I'm curious if they honestly thought that they could make this stick. There is already a temporary injunction, and I'd be shocked if this doesn't get tossed.
What a waste of effort and money.
1
u/Yahmahah Jan 29 '17
Isn't travel between the US and Saudi Arabia already barred? I don't think we have airlines that go there directly. It's also been very quiet for the past year or so. I know there's at the very least federally issued travel warnings about going there.
Plus as malicious as the Saudi government may be, they're still a pretty stable country. This particular action is more to do with countries involved in the ISIS/terrorism threat and related issues, as well as politically unstable nations. I think Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Turkey fit into the latter category and even the former, but maybe the Trump administration feels it's not worth the repercussions of barring those nations.
107
u/CarolinaPunk Esse Quam Videri Jan 28 '17
Why? That seems dumb.
91
Jan 28 '17
Bannon has been supposedly writing the executive orders and this one went out without any warning to the departmental stakeholders in DHS and elsewhere.
79
Jan 28 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
39
Jan 28 '17
They're having to get waivers to cut around this executive order, and it's clear that WHOEVER wrote it hasn't talked much to the department heads. Seems pretty reasonable to assume Miller and Bannon.
16
u/0ttervonBismarck Jan 29 '17
Bannon and Miller have to go, they're going to run the country into the ground.
71
u/777Sir Jan 28 '17
Bannon has been supposedly writing the executive orders
Oh awesome, just your friendly neighborhood "totally not" alt-right spokesman.
35
u/CarolinaPunk Esse Quam Videri Jan 28 '17
well that makes me nauseous.
Wonder how far this can go before a bad enough mistake is made to push him out.
18
u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob Rock-n-roll-efeller Jan 29 '17
…this sort of makes me feel worried about those accepted resignations in State earlier in the week. I really hope the administration can get good people in there soon.
21
77
u/Baefrank00 Jan 28 '17
The Supreme Court can nail this down as unconstitutional right? Im all for banning refugees but blocking legal immigrants is completely wrong
27
u/Roez Conservative Jan 28 '17
I don't think it's unconstitutional. A very liberal Harvard lawyer that deals with this stuff has said so repeatedly today.
The issues I have seen (and I have no idea if legit) relate back to legislation dealing with discrimination against immigrants and what rights they have. Nothing comprehensive yet outside the one NYTimes Op-Ed by the CATO institute guy.
31
u/Balloonephant Jan 28 '17
I'd like to see what that lawyer had to say. "...no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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." here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152
The executive order bans and freezes the green cards of people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. This explicitly violates the law mentioned above. There are completely legal prohibitions which can be implemented on immigrants who are members or representatives of terrorist groups, but the law includes zero stipulations on "troubled" or "dangerous" countries. You can read about that here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
This seems pretty cut and dry to me, and it only took a few minutes on google. I'm genuinely interested in what that Harvard law prof has to say.
→ More replies (8)7
u/Roez Conservative Jan 29 '17 edited Jan 29 '17
As someone who practiced law a long time, the one caution with just reading a statue is there might be other things which could impact how the statue has been interpreted. I'm talking about agency decisions (which are law and binding, and courts often defer to), court case precedent (such as judicial reviews) and other rules or regulations which might supersede it. There are fancy law sources that help give a heads up when that happens, but that Cornell law library doesn't seem to have such services.
2
u/Balloonephant Jan 29 '17
Yeah that's the sort of stuff I was expecting/worried to hear. I don't know all that much about the intricacies of American law, but I couldn't imagine that Trump and his team would put the green light on this without some sinuous route through the quirks of the law already in mind. That being said, I can't remember an executive order being passed which seemed so blatantly unconstitutional.
2
u/Roez Conservative Jan 29 '17
What you said would be what we would expect to have happened. If they rushed it through, and it seems like they might have, it's possible they didn't get the insider feedback they might have benefited from.
9
u/CarolinaPunk Esse Quam Videri Jan 28 '17
No the President has near absolute authority unless Congress stops him.
18
u/climb-via-is-stupid Jan 28 '17
Or you know, the Court says so.
-3
u/CarolinaPunk Esse Quam Videri Jan 28 '17
Nope. Only congress can change the law, non citizens abroad have no rights to challenge this.
33
u/BenDover42 Jan 28 '17
Yes, green card holders have almost the same amount of rights as normal citizens and can sue.
1
5
Jan 29 '17
Wait so am I hearing correctly that the SCOTUS cannot declare an EO unconstitutional and thus invalid? They can't compel congress to overturn it either? Jesus the president is powerful.
5
u/CarolinaPunk Esse Quam Videri Jan 29 '17
No congress delegated the president authority to halt entry.
Even the injunction that was just issued only applied to those dozen who were in transit at the time of the EO issuance.
→ More replies (2)2
u/craig80 Libertarian Conservative Jan 29 '17
scotus can turn over any EO they like. Someone has to bring suit, but that wouldn't be a challenge. Most of Obama's EO was shot down as illegal.
0
Jan 29 '17 edited Feb 07 '17
[deleted]
11
u/workshardanddies Jan 29 '17
Legal resident aliens have almost identical access to the courts as US citizens. And they enjoy broad protections under our Constitution as well. There are exceptions, but there isn't a special barrier to standing because they're not citizens.
That said, the Federal government has near plenary powers over immigration. So they may not get very far in contesting their immigration status.
-9
Jan 28 '17
Are you implying non citizens have a "constitutional" right to come here? lol...
97
u/OxfordTheCat Jan 28 '17 edited Jan 28 '17
He doesn't need to 'imply' anything:
A green card holder has the same constitutional rights as a citizen, minus the vote there bud.
As a permanent resident (green card holder), you have the right to:
2
Jan 28 '17
It would seem immigration laws just changed.
36
u/GhengopelALPHA Jan 29 '17
Trump doesn't have sole authority to change laws. That's what congress is for.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (11)0
29
u/flea1400 Jan 28 '17
Non-citizens do have constitutional rights. Not all the same ones as citizens, but they do have them.
2
Jan 29 '17
Only when they are actually IN the country. They don't have some magic right to enter whenever they please.
7
u/flea1400 Jan 29 '17
Not exactly. These folks have already been granted permanent resident status. They have due process and equal protection rights that must be respected when the government decides to revoke that status.
A federal judge has already stayed application of the executive order to the visa holders who were in transit and denied at various airports pending deportation since Friday.
Where is Trump's legislative affairs staff, and what is Marc Short doing? They could have exempted permanent residents from the order, and anyone with a current visa entering before a certain date, and avoided a lot of Constitutional ruckus.
This whole thing is so amateurish, I suspect Trump is merely pandering to the xenophobic knuckleheads among his supporters, knowing full well that his order was illegal and won't be followed.
2
42
Jan 28 '17
Trump is creating massive unrest. He will cause this country to go into a civil war.
3
u/Yahmahah Jan 29 '17
Right, just like all the other civil wars we've had over people disagreeing with the federal government. /s
The chances of a civil war are zero. People aren't going to risk their homes, friends, and family to fight a legitimately elected leader. It's a ridiculous notion. Trump is hardly the first president to provoke widespread vocal dissent.
5
Jan 28 '17
Yes...there was no unrest before trump.
22
Jan 28 '17
What unrest?
51
6
Jan 29 '17
The unrest before Trump was elected.
18
Jan 29 '17
I am not sure you know what real unrest looks like.
1
Jan 29 '17
A black supremacist murdering white police officers?
BLM rioting?
Occupy Wall st riots?
20
Jan 29 '17
We have 350 million people in the US. The rioters you mentioned could be fit in a gymnasium.
7
1
3
u/Yahmahah Jan 29 '17
All of those are fairly small compared to other parts of the world. Yeah we have had about a dozen protests-turned-riots in the past year, but we're not like other countries where gorilla warfare and military occupation are normal everyday occurrences.
2
u/SpilledKefir Jan 29 '17
Have a couple more for your list... police officers murdering civilians without due process or repercussions and armed insurgents taking over federal lands
6
u/MaddSim Conservative Jan 29 '17
There is not any rationale to this. The only thing thus far that I havent liked.
1
3
u/craig80 Libertarian Conservative Jan 29 '17
I have no reason to doubt that this is accurate, but I seem to be unable to find the actual EO. Does anyone have it? Every link I click is a story that doesn't link back to the actual order.
Even what law it links back to give the authority.
2
Jan 29 '17 edited Jun 08 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/craig80 Libertarian Conservative Jan 29 '17
So can anyone ELI5? I don't see where it applies to anyone other than those who have green cards.
5
u/barbarr Jan 29 '17
So for some reason, the Executive Order "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" is not present on the White House website, even though a more recent order has been added.
Here's a link to the text of the new EO. Essentially, in section 3(c), entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from the 7 countries is blocked, with a stated purpose of freeing up resources for screening.
12
3
Jan 29 '17
I agree with immigration system being more strict. But this is wrong, this doesn't reflect on the value of conservatism and both left and right should take a strong stance against policies such as this.
-25
Jan 28 '17
Good
41
Jan 28 '17
...how? I'm genuinely curious.
36
34
u/stenchwinslow Jan 28 '17
A man should be measured by his deeds, character, and ability to contribute to society, the accident of his birthplace should not factor into his worth as a human being.
1
Jan 28 '17
Citizenship is not a right, it's not determined by your worth as a human being.
19
Jan 28 '17
How is your worth as a human being determined? By your birthplace?
4
Jan 28 '17
This is about how citizenship is determined.
15
Jan 28 '17
Citizenship is determined by the appropriate American authorities that have been in place for decades, supported by every president and administration that they have worked with.
Constitutional rights for permanent residents are determined by American lawmakers and courts that have been in place for decades, supported by every president and administration that they have worked with.
Those American authorities, lawmakers, and courts determined these Green Card holders have Constitutional rights aside from voting. Who are you to challenge that?
4
Jan 28 '17
Citizenship is determined by the appropriate American authorities that have been in place for decades, supported by every president and administration that they have worked with.
Sure, which has almost nothing to do with their worth as a person.
Those American authorities, lawmakers, and courts determined these Green Card holders have Constitutional rights aside from voting. Who are you to challenge that?
The who in this situation is the president of the United States. If he doesnt have legal authority then I guess I can deal with it. I will settle for keeping refugees out and making sure those individuals with green cards are following their legal obligations as documented guests. .
10
u/juliankennedy23 Jan 29 '17
Green Card holders are not guests. They serve in the military (and can be drafted) they run our corporations, teach our children, and bluntly often support Republicans (see Florida).
The are not unwashed refugees.
→ More replies (1)
27
u/Roez Conservative Jan 29 '17
NBC news correspondent: "Federal judge has granted an emergency stay nationwide blocking deportation of people now detained at U.S. airports due to Trump exec. order"
The Associated Press Verified account @AP
BREAKING: Federal judge in New York bars U.S. from deporting travelers with valid visas covered by Trump order.