Canadian Dual Nationals Banned From US or Not?
- Thread starter links18
- Start date
links18 said:
Canadian government says no. But who knows what is actually happening at US airports. What a cluster.
Easily the savviest political move yet by the new administration. Polling shows that half the American electorate and 75% of Republicans favour the executive order in question. All the publicity, demonstrations, remonstrations and swift legal injunctions prove to the President's base that he is doing what he said he would do. A publicity triumph for the President that serves to increase his mandate.
links18 said:
I saw a lot of free media all about President Trump and his policies. Lots of media attention about people from "muslim" countries who were held at a port of entry, prevented from boarding a flight to the U.S., or put on flights out of the country. More media coverage of attorneys flocking to the scene, laptops in hand and bleeding hearts at the ready. Even more media attention of "left-wing" protestors making use of tea-party tactics. And "activist" courts placing injunctions against the Administration's actions. President Trump and his Executive Order were the very centre of media attention this week. To these sore eyes, that's what winning looks like!
Let us be clear: at the very least, the Executive Order issued was intended to be an illegal exercise of power, at least in part. Probably more so than that, but at least in so far as the White House intended and attempted to apply it to Green Card holders who are nationals of the named countries, it was blatantly illegal.
Supposedly there were lawyers in the Administration who passed off on this EO, who advised the WH it was a legal exercise of the President's powers. The acting Attorney General of the U.S. disagreed, and was fired for that. It appears that the Department of Homeland Security also disagreed but went about things less confrontationally (mostly by applying the EO contrary to some WH orders, but without discussing it one way or the other with WH staff, and continued to do so even after the WH sent communications to do otherwise).
While the Administration has subsequently made an effort to frame things otherwise, it is clear that initially the Executive Order was intended to bar even American Green Card holders from returning to the U.S. if they are a national of one of the seven countries named in the Ban. Several GC holders, who were on flights that landed in the first 24 hours or so after the EO was issued, were given the option of remaining in "detention" (otherwise known as jail) or at no additional cost to them, taking the next return flight to the airport from which they departed for the U.S., and several of them did indeed take the flight . . . doing so under much pressure and no opportunity to consult with anyone, not even their lawyers.
In particular, for around 36 hours the DHS (Homeland Security) and the White House were NOT on the same page, DHS informing airlines to allow GC holders to board flights to the U.S. (with advice to the GC holders they would be subject to further screening on arrival in the U.S.), and in contrast the WH informing DHS to not allow GC holders from the named countries to come to the U.S.
After initially taking the position that GC holders from the affected countries were banned, the WH then interpreted the EO to require GC holders (again, those who are nationals of the named countries) to obtain a "waiver" before they would be allowed to board a flight to the U.S., and then, if given the waiver, subject to further screening upon arrival.
While I am not sure that the U.S. law is so definite about the right of Permanent Residents to return to and enter the U.S., as the right of Canadian PRs to return to and enter Canada, my understanding is that it is at the least comparable.
That is, that GC holders have a legal right to return to the U.S. and to enter the U.S., by law.
Making the WH interpretation and attempted application of the EO illegal, at least in so far as it was being applied to GC holders.
Whatever the American electorate might want, however adamantly they might want it, the President of the U.S. has NO legal power to unilaterally change the law. And if the President takes action (or directs those in the Executive branch, like DHS and border officers and so on) contrary to the law, that is an illegal exercise of power. (Does not necessarily make it a crime. What is criminal is more precisely defined than what is "illegal.")
And Congress cannot change the law overnight. Or in a fortnight. The legislative process takes time.
The fact that the WH intended and attempted to have this EO applied illegally, at least in part, reveals a lot.
It reveals that either this President is willing to disregard the law, or is willing to act in ignorance of the law.
It reveals contempt for due process.
It reveals contempt for the rule of law.
It reveals this President has, within such a short period of time of taking office, acted illegally.
And make no mistake, this was deliberate, very much intended to be a demonstration of the scope of power this President intends to exercise.
None of this should be much of a surprise. This man did not just admit, but bragged about sexually assaulting women and because of his position being able to get away with that.
This man did not just admit to fraud, he bragged that he intended to break contracts and "renegotiate" them on better terms. And he wantonly broadcast that he considered schemes to deceive (otherwise known as fraud) banks and investors, as the "art of the deal."
This man built his political career on trying to de-legitimize a popular and duly elected President by deliberately advancing what he knew was a total falsehood, exploiting the lowest common-denominator in American society, racism and bigotry.
This is not going to go well. To what extent it will not go well is a huge unknown. Anybody's guess. The media and their pundits are stunned and spinning their wheels, incapable of dealing with this phenomena, struggling to get some traction, struggling to establish even a perspective let alone find answers.
Millions are incessantly checking the news, hoping that suddenly the headlines will tell a different story, the gold-gilded goon has suddenly departed and reason is being restored. They know that is not going to be the news, that is not going to happen. They cannot help hoping otherwise.
This is madness, on the brink of huge changes, no reliable markers to guide the way. The capacity of societies to normalize and adapt may allow this storm to pass without too much damage being done. There are, though, huge risks otherwise. The many millions who have already taken to the streets were remarkably civil and peaceful and law-abiding. But so many millions already taking to the streets also reveals a lot. And that is a lot that does not bode well for where the current Administration is headed.
Odds are high this is going to get very ugly before the dust settles.
I feel like that Italian man who, last week, happened to leave the hotel and was out in the parking lot when a huge avalanche swept down and crushed the hotel, his family and many friends inside. I made it out. I have family left behind. And many others about whom I care deeply. They are now buried in that morass of senseless extremism wrought by narcissism and rabid partisanship which feigns to be American democracy.
No shining beacon on a hill in sight.
Supposedly there were lawyers in the Administration who passed off on this EO, who advised the WH it was a legal exercise of the President's powers. The acting Attorney General of the U.S. disagreed, and was fired for that. It appears that the Department of Homeland Security also disagreed but went about things less confrontationally (mostly by applying the EO contrary to some WH orders, but without discussing it one way or the other with WH staff, and continued to do so even after the WH sent communications to do otherwise).
While the Administration has subsequently made an effort to frame things otherwise, it is clear that initially the Executive Order was intended to bar even American Green Card holders from returning to the U.S. if they are a national of one of the seven countries named in the Ban. Several GC holders, who were on flights that landed in the first 24 hours or so after the EO was issued, were given the option of remaining in "detention" (otherwise known as jail) or at no additional cost to them, taking the next return flight to the airport from which they departed for the U.S., and several of them did indeed take the flight . . . doing so under much pressure and no opportunity to consult with anyone, not even their lawyers.
In particular, for around 36 hours the DHS (Homeland Security) and the White House were NOT on the same page, DHS informing airlines to allow GC holders to board flights to the U.S. (with advice to the GC holders they would be subject to further screening on arrival in the U.S.), and in contrast the WH informing DHS to not allow GC holders from the named countries to come to the U.S.
After initially taking the position that GC holders from the affected countries were banned, the WH then interpreted the EO to require GC holders (again, those who are nationals of the named countries) to obtain a "waiver" before they would be allowed to board a flight to the U.S., and then, if given the waiver, subject to further screening upon arrival.
While I am not sure that the U.S. law is so definite about the right of Permanent Residents to return to and enter the U.S., as the right of Canadian PRs to return to and enter Canada, my understanding is that it is at the least comparable.
That is, that GC holders have a legal right to return to the U.S. and to enter the U.S., by law.
Making the WH interpretation and attempted application of the EO illegal, at least in so far as it was being applied to GC holders.
Whatever the American electorate might want, however adamantly they might want it, the President of the U.S. has NO legal power to unilaterally change the law. And if the President takes action (or directs those in the Executive branch, like DHS and border officers and so on) contrary to the law, that is an illegal exercise of power. (Does not necessarily make it a crime. What is criminal is more precisely defined than what is "illegal.")
And Congress cannot change the law overnight. Or in a fortnight. The legislative process takes time.
The fact that the WH intended and attempted to have this EO applied illegally, at least in part, reveals a lot.
It reveals that either this President is willing to disregard the law, or is willing to act in ignorance of the law.
It reveals contempt for due process.
It reveals contempt for the rule of law.
It reveals this President has, within such a short period of time of taking office, acted illegally.
And make no mistake, this was deliberate, very much intended to be a demonstration of the scope of power this President intends to exercise.
None of this should be much of a surprise. This man did not just admit, but bragged about sexually assaulting women and because of his position being able to get away with that.
This man did not just admit to fraud, he bragged that he intended to break contracts and "renegotiate" them on better terms. And he wantonly broadcast that he considered schemes to deceive (otherwise known as fraud) banks and investors, as the "art of the deal."
This man built his political career on trying to de-legitimize a popular and duly elected President by deliberately advancing what he knew was a total falsehood, exploiting the lowest common-denominator in American society, racism and bigotry.
This is not going to go well. To what extent it will not go well is a huge unknown. Anybody's guess. The media and their pundits are stunned and spinning their wheels, incapable of dealing with this phenomena, struggling to get some traction, struggling to establish even a perspective let alone find answers.
Millions are incessantly checking the news, hoping that suddenly the headlines will tell a different story, the gold-gilded goon has suddenly departed and reason is being restored. They know that is not going to be the news, that is not going to happen. They cannot help hoping otherwise.
This is madness, on the brink of huge changes, no reliable markers to guide the way. The capacity of societies to normalize and adapt may allow this storm to pass without too much damage being done. There are, though, huge risks otherwise. The many millions who have already taken to the streets were remarkably civil and peaceful and law-abiding. But so many millions already taking to the streets also reveals a lot. And that is a lot that does not bode well for where the current Administration is headed.
Odds are high this is going to get very ugly before the dust settles.
I feel like that Italian man who, last week, happened to leave the hotel and was out in the parking lot when a huge avalanche swept down and crushed the hotel, his family and many friends inside. I made it out. I have family left behind. And many others about whom I care deeply. They are now buried in that morass of senseless extremism wrought by narcissism and rabid partisanship which feigns to be American democracy.
No shining beacon on a hill in sight.
links18 said:
I think yes. read this
http://www.cicnews.com/2017/01/syrian-permanent-resident-canada-denied-entry-to-us-despite-immigration-minister-assurance-018850.html
dpenabill said:
Non citizens are not guaranteed entry, by law, into the United States. The Executive Branch has significant powers regarding ingress of aliens, resident or otherwise. To my knowledge, there are no clear precedents in U.S. jurisprudence to establish that the Executive Order is an illegal exercise of power; such an adjudication can come from (i) a decision by the Judicial Branch or (ii) a successful passage of legislation or impeachment of the President by the Legislative Branch (checks and balances).
Two conflicting precedents come to mind: (i) the deportation and imprisonment of thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II still stands as a legal Executive action; and (ii) the removal of the "Civilized Nations" (Trail of Tears) by President Jackson, which had been ruled by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional -- the President said, "[Chief Justice] Marshall has ruled, now let him enforce it" and removed the Native Americans anyway.
dpenabill said:
If I'm not mistaken, "You're fired!" is the line that made the President famous in America.
dpenabill said:
I will agree that they didn't seem to be on the same page. Confusion and conflicting reports generates more news coverage -- which was, in my opinion, the primary intent of the Executive Order.
dpenabill said:
This has been common practice at U.S. borders for years.
dpenabill said:
It is not the same in the two countries. The Executive has the power to unilaterally revoke the status of any alien, especially when done for security purposes. And while due process may be required, it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court will overrule the Executive in this regard.
dpenabill said:
Unless, and until, Congress acts to make the particulars of this Executive Order contrary to law, then this is not currently an illegal exercise of power. Neither the courts nor Congress have set any consistent precedents in this particular regard.
dpenabill said:
In university, historians are often exhorted to "follow the money". If one follows the money during the recent presidential election, and the first weeks of the Presidency, the money trail is quite clear. The news media has been, far and away, the clear winner -- as an industry, they have made the most money on the presidential election and the early Presidency. For the first time in a long time, the news outlets are popular and relevant. "Trump" is the new click-bait.
During the election, the news media made Trump the centre of their attention -- especially "liberal" media. While Fox did not give candidate Trump very much exposure (relative to other majour outlets), MSNBC became an unwatchable Trump-fest. Liberals have had their noses glued to their news-feeds, and that has generated plenty of profits. The "liberal" media contributed to the rise of President Trump.
dpenabill said:
Racial cleansing, genocide, slavery, territorial conquest, segregation, nativism -- that beacon ain't never shined on that thar hill!
Natan said:
Well, every single court to rule on this so far has ruled against the President. Granted these are preliminary injunctions, but it isn't looking good for the President. Probably, the real intention of initially applying this order to PRs was to test the boundaries of loyalty in the Department of Homeland Security in advance of what they have planned next--to draw out who was willing to go along and who put up resistance.