Okay.
So it seems you now admit that people that aren't US citizens but are residents have constitutional rights. "wishful thinking by leftists who want to ascribe U.S. Constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens," has become "non-citizen RESIDENTS ... are afforded some of the rights under the U.S. Constitution."
Golly. You are now officially a leftist by your own definition. See what spending time on this board does to you.
Now for part two: why sections of the EO may not be impregnable.
1. You are missing the categories of aliens who aren't seeking admission for the first time, have constitutional rights, aren't permanent residents, and are affected by the EO. I'll leave you to figure who is in that category. Once you figure it out, you'll realise the constitutional arguments are germane at a minimum with respect to this group.
2. By their words, the administration and its surrogates have strengthened the argument that the EO is a religious ban in disguise. There's plenty of domestic and international law which suggests discrimination on the basis of religion is unlawful. Personally, I don't know why religions are protected, but this is a discussion of the law, and not of whether it is right.
3. But assuming the text of the EO reflects the executive's sincere concern about those seven countries, then it appears to breach the same US immigration law you cite as the source of authority for the president's proclamation. INA says: "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
4. Refugees seeking asylum and especially those facing the risk of torture are a protected category. The US has obligations under domestic and international law, including within INA. The EO ignores these. You can't cherry-pick the clauses that suit you and disregard those that don't. And of course, as I explained previously, the EO is vulnerable to laws other than INA. The law isn't an equation.
5. The process employed by the executive in implementing the EO was deficient in treating a matter which involves substantive rights. Boring but nevertheless problematic for the administration.
The courts will decide how this EO is interpreted.
| 
