Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban

Capt Gregory Prickett - Mistretta V United States: "Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.:" Thus 8 U.S.C.A. §1182(f), stands.

Capt Gregory Prickett - So reading 1101(a)(13) it seems to me that the ban should still apply to those who have not been granted visas prior to the effective date of the ban, with the exception of "immediate relatives".

Capt Gregory Prickett - Then when does 8 U.S.C.A. §1182(f):

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

apply?

Capt Gregory Prickett - what is an LPR?

This is where you got me confused. If Trump actually dies something resembling governing instead of Twitter attacks and attention-whoring behavior, I'll give the devil his due. I'm adult enough and confident enough in myself to admit when I'm wrong. All he has done is go on his "Look at me!! Aren't I great?" tours and hide out at his resort, on the tax payers dime I might add

Freudian slip?

SSG Michael Hartsfield - it certainly does not apply to a foreign national requesting permission to enter the US on a visa which are the only people that are affected by the travel restriction

SGM Erik Marquez - Touché

Capt Gregory Prickett - sir
Sight the case law and USSC decision that supports non US citizens outside of the US as having rights under the constution of the US.

Sir we both know no such case law or USSC decision exists.
Until it does my position that non us citizens living outside the US have no constitutional rights is valid.

As yours would be if you say they do have constitutional rights neither of us have caselaw or Supreme Court decision to back up our opinions I except that

Nevertheless my opinion is non-US citizens outside the US have no constitutional rights under the US Constitution

Capt Gregory Prickett - "being held by the U.S"
That puts then "In the US" if not physically, then still under US control.

YES, I understand that case is an exception....but only because they are in a US detention facility, under US control.... But that is NOT what we are discussing...

We are discussion Non US citizens Not in the US (or in US Detention facility, under US control)
That is the demographic the temporary travel ban is targeting...That is the demographic who has NO constitutional rights under US law, thus the travel ban can not be "unconstitutional" at least in my non lawyer, laymen understanding.