DailyMail flunks U.S. legal theory

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4167812/Donald-Trump-DEFENDS-immigration-ban-order.html
Earlier this week, Pres. Trump signed an executive order regarding Muslim dominated nations to temporarily ban “refugees” from these nations and to sort out the mess that’s become of our American immigration system and to repair it so that it actually will receive refugees. Today, there was huge chaos as people who had their visas in check prior to Pres. Trump’s signing of this executive order were detained at different international airports. Did you notice the word prior?

First off, Trump’s immigration executive order is not a ban on all Muslims. It is a ban on Muslims who have been affiliated with genital mutilation of women, unjust and bigoted persecution of religious minorities, and inhumane acts of violence. This is why he gave Syria an indefinite refugee ban. The majority of refugees coming from Syria are actually affiliated with the rebel groups that Assad and Putin have been fighting back against. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard took a trip to Syria a few months ago and discovered that Russian media and Syrian media was telling the truth–these rebel groups that Assad and Putin have been fighting are terrorist groups. The religious minorities such as the Christian groups and Shi’ite Muslim groups in Syria are actually the ones who are wanting to stay in Syria. Who wouldn’t want to stay in their home?

Secondly, what the main problem that these federal officials saw with the detaining of these people from these areas today was not Pres. Trump’s executive order but it was actually an issue of the ex post facto law. Law from after the fact. In U.S. law, someone cannot be charged or convicted or punished for a crime that became a law only after they had committed it. Hence, the decision was to let these people who were detained and had obtained a visa prior to the law go.

If we see another issue like this and a man is detained who had obtained a visa post-Jan. 28, what we will more than likely see is that there are no grounds to charge the executive order as unconstitutional.

For the record, the ruling was in regard to the detaining of people with valid visas from before the temporary ban was instituted.

The President has yet to tweet about this so it seems that the executive order was not challenged at all.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

I will amend this writing if it was in fact challenged.

Advertisements

About newenglandsun

A student. Male. Passionate. Easily offended. Child-like wonderer. Growing in faith, messing up daily.
This entry was posted in History. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to DailyMail flunks U.S. legal theory

  1. Pingback: Relax–the sky is not falling… | Theological Rejuvenation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s