Executive orders banning entry to US ... [merged threads]
Mar 30, 2017, 3:14 am
#376
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The judge in Hawaii (who halted the EO 2.0 ban) has now blocked the EO 2.0 ban indefinitely:
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-326531
https://news.google.com/news/amp?cau...tml#pt0-326531
Mar 30, 2017, 5:30 am
#378
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Mar 30, 2017, 5:45 am
#379
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Since the executive arms of government tries to hold us accountable for what we say, it's to be expected that the judicial arm of government takes into account arguments based on what the author of the EO has said prior to instituting such a ban in any and all of its versions.
The judicial branch is allowed to take into account the context as well as the legal text of whatever it is reviewing, based on McCleary Cty v ACLU of KY (2005). That would include Trump's campaign rallies and tweets.
Seems counterproductive to compare EO 2.0 to EO 1.0 when 1.0 was just slapped down by no less than half a dozen judges.
Mar 30, 2017, 7:53 am
#380
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Enforcement of the EO provisions is still prohibited by judicial order "in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas".
Apr 1, 2017, 12:00 am
#381
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
What's gone less noticed by major media is that these EOs weren't the only attacks upon the ability to travel to and be admitted into the US that have gone into place since the 1.0 version of this EO went live. Being more restrictive with "deferred inspection" and "advance parole"? Except in a Casablanca moment, I can't say that this would shock me.
Apr 1, 2017, 8:09 am
#382
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
Under the current environment I wouldn't advise anyone waiting on their green card to even think about leaving under advance parole. I strongly advise anyone here under deferred inspection to do the same.
Apr 1, 2017, 8:36 am
#383
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Since the executive arms of government tries to hold us accountable for what we say, it's to be expected that the judicial arm of government takes into account arguments based on what the author of the EO has said prior to instituting such a ban in any and all of its versions.
Apr 1, 2017, 9:17 am
#384
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The same legal basis the government uses to go after people for actions that are violations of law that include intent as a requirement for a given action to be deemed a violation of law.
What we say can be used against us in a court of law -- even words people make on online forums under real names or pseudonyms. An exercise of a 1st Amendment right doesn't inoculate the user from those words being used in a court of law as an indication of intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
What we say can be used against us in a court of law -- even words people make on online forums under real names or pseudonyms. An exercise of a 1st Amendment right doesn't inoculate the user from those words being used in a court of law as an indication of intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 1, 2017 at 9:24 am
Apr 1, 2017, 9:27 am
#385
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
The same legal basis the government uses to go after people for actions that are violations of law that include intent as a requirement for a given action to be deemed a violation of law.
What we say can be used against us in a court of law -- even words people make on online forums under real names or pseudonyms. An exercise of a 1st Amendment right doesn't inoculate the user from those words being used in a court of law as an indication of intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
What we say can be used against us in a court of law -- even words people make on online forums under real names or pseudonyms. An exercise of a 1st Amendment right doesn't inoculate the user from those words being used in a court of law as an indication of intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Apr 1, 2017, 9:33 am
#386
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
When the legal basis for such determinations (of lawful/unlawful action) is tied to intent, "who" perpetrates an act is something that matters. This has been the situation for at least as long as there has been a United States of America with due process in courts of law.
Intent matters. Words are used to determine intent. Who matters since intent matters. Since it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 1, 2017 at 9:41 am
Apr 1, 2017, 11:56 am
#387
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
It goes way back in English Common Law, of which US law is a continuation. US courts - from your local general district court to the federal Supreme Court - do not decide things by strictly by statute but also by case law and precedent.
Last edited by catocony; Apr 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Apr 1, 2017, 3:30 pm
#388
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
The same legal basis the government uses to go after people for actions that are violations of law that include intent as a requirement for a given action to be deemed a violation of law.
What we say can be used against us in a court of law -- even words people make on online forums under real names or pseudonyms. An exercise of a 1st Amendment right doesn't inoculate the user from those words being used in a court of law as an indication of intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
What we say can be used against us in a court of law -- even words people make on online forums under real names or pseudonyms. An exercise of a 1st Amendment right doesn't inoculate the user from those words being used in a court of law as an indication of intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
http://fortune.com/2017/02/10/donald...ts-travel-ban/
But in what could be a first, his tweets about a ban on Muslims traveling to the U.S. may have helped convince the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay his executive order on immigration.
Apr 1, 2017, 3:55 pm
#389
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Online social media actions -- words at that -- have been used before in courts to examine intent. Tweets included as part of online social media. I would be surprised if this was the first time tweets have been used by judges or prosecutors in reviewing a case.
Apr 2, 2017, 1:34 am
#390
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The acting CBP Commissioner in charge of implementing the "Muslim Ban" EO and other international travel-related crackdowns on persons under the current US Admin has been rewarded by being selected by the President to be the permanent CBP Commissioner.
http://www.americanshipper.com/main/...7136.aspx#hide
http://www.americanshipper.com/main/...7136.aspx#hide
Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 2, 2017 at 1:57 am