Beldin,
You showed me that the president is assigned certain authority over immigration by a phrase in the ina. Not that the US constitution is set aside when he writes an eo. Or that the phrasing in this eo conforms with the many powers assigned in the ina.
The courts will decide if the president has exceeded his authority. They are likely to consider the scope of the president's discretion, his intentions in issuing the eo, as well as the rights of immigrants and refugees under US and international law. Apparently the Germans believe the US is in breach of the Geneva Refugee Convention. Yes, those damn leftist Nazi foreign scum actually dare to tell the incomparable USA that there is such a thing as international law as well. And that it has obligations as a result. What the f---.
But back to the good ole USA. When you write things like "wishful thinking by leftists who want to ascribe U.S. Constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens," does it occur to you to wonder if there is any truth to what you are writing? Or is your keyboard on your knee and subject to its jerks?
The US constitution assigns rights over voting and holding office to US citizens. Otherwise, broadly and with only occasional exceptions, non-citizens are treated much the same as citizens. The Bill of Rights applies to people living within the territory of the USA, rather than only citizens. This has been the settled doctrine of the Supreme Court for more than a century.
Here's the way Justice Murphy phrased it: "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority." Bridges v. Wixon
Thus, non-citizens are generally entitled to equal protection (Yick Wo v Hopkins, Wong Wing v USA and Yamataya v Fisher), the freedoms in the establishment clause (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v Meese, Brunnenkant v Laird) and to due process (Zadvydas v Davis and Clark v Martinez). Curiously, and I am sure coincidentally, these are the three constitutional clauses identified by the AG in Washington State and which he complains that the Trump eo breaches. I guess all those courts involved in the making of case law surrounding non-citizen rights were all leftists!
But wait. In fact, the protections of non-citizens were expressly discussed by none other than James Madison. You may not have heard of him. But he said this: "Aliens are not more party to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage." Well he obviously had no idea about the US constitution.
It is almost as if those unalienable rights spoken about by Thomas Jefferson applied to all people, rather than just to Americans. And that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to the USA as it does to other signatories.
I know. I know. You are aware of only one phrase in one law, so other things don't count. And anything which doesn't conform with your partisan understanding must be a leftist plot. Trump can do what he wishes. He is unencumbered by the need to observe the constitution. His plenary power is absolute. There is no rule of law when it comes to immigration. The US is not obliged to honour international law.
But really, you should just stop digging. We both know you are a fake. In conversations, facts actually matter. In law, evidence actually matters. In legal argument, precedent actually matters. The constitution actually applies. Even to an administration as hopeless as this one.
Meanwhile, as I have said previously, Congress has wide discretion in framing immigration law. But the courts will decide whether this eo is constitutional and whether it conforms with all aspects of the ina. It's plausible that certain clauses will run into difficulty.
| 
