Page 10 - 1182 News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana
Stay updated with breaking news from 1182. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Top News In 1182 Today - Breaking & Trending Today
Scheme, the ten-part test for determining whether someone could be excluded on an individual basis on grounds of 1182-a? 1182-a and other provisions. that s there. in addition, you have congress specific judgment on the very evidence that is in the executive order from december of 2015. and what congress said is we don t need to have drag net based exclusions but insist on visas when people come in with respect to these very countries. the most important thing, and it sets up your question. the government has not engaged in mass, drag net exclusions in the past 50 years. this is something new and unusual in which you re saying this whole class of people, some of which are dangerous, we can bar them all. our brief pages 37 to 42. ....
Visas. it wasn t doing anything to limit the president s suspension power. i want to point out, by the way, if you take their argument seriously, i think they re committed to the view that under 1182-f even if the president got actionable intelligence tomorrow that, let s say, a libyan national were attempting to enter the country, but the president didn t know his identity, they would say the president can t suspend entry because that s a national iity if i could interject a question on the merits here, the executive order sets out national security justifications. but how is a court to know if, in fact, it s a muslim ban in the guise of national security ....
Extensively. could you respond to the government s argument? absolutely. that the two statutes need to be read separately? judge paez, you have it exactly right. let me set out exactly what the argument is. that the president is claiming a sweeping power, essentially to set aside the ina. in fact, the president refers to, quote, an absolute right to ban any group or anybody that s in the brief in page three. if you read it that way, if you listen to what mr. wall said, you are giving the president the anlt to take a magic eraser to the entire united states code with respect to immigration and nullify anything because of this 1182 provision. that can t possibly be what the statute is about. there are four problems with the statutory argument. one is what you were just referring to, swrunlg paez, about 1152, nationality based discrimination. three other things. congress finally reticulated ....
The concern that the governments of those countries and the deteriorating conditions in places like iran and syria, may mean we re not getting reliable information. while i ascertain whether they re actually adequate. he wasn t saying i find they would be detrimental because they re dargeous or potential terrorists or anything like that. in the face of uncertainty about whether we re getting good information from their governments so that we can screen them out in the visa process, i m going to put a temporary hold subject to the visa waiver. and i think under a mandel rational basis review but frankly under any legal standard, the president s detrimentality would easily survive. the second half of your question gets back a little bit to what judge hawkins and i were talking about. 1182 is entry. ....
President is disabled, every president, permanently, for making any nationality base distinctions under 1182-f, reagan with the cubans, carter with the iranians. unless you take that road, i don t think there s any way to read the statutes to provide the basis for the injunction we have here. if i could just reserve the remainder of my time. thank you. thank you, judge gould. may it please the court, the government would like to pretend that this court s decision in washington versus trump never happened. the government can t shut its eyes to t simple test. ask yourself if you accept any of the arguments you just heard would it have altered washington versus trump if sn if the answer is yes, that settles it. mandel applies even though washington said it didn t, when the government claims you can t look beyond the face of the order even though washington said you could, when they say ....