They won't be within the United states if they aren't brought here in the first place so they will have zero rights and if they somehow get here with the EO in effect they should be detained as the invaders they are.
The Executive Order isn't currently in effect, remember? It has been temporarily restrained. Your point, while absolutely ludicrous, doesn't even apply. If you are on US soil you have Constitutional Rights. Period.
I would guess that the judge who overturned the EO was with the president during his top secret clearance briefings so he knows the entire situation such that he was able to say with 100% confidence that it is not dire and the EO was not justified.
What intelligence reports? Trump rarely receives the PDB. If the US government wants to make an argument that intelligence briefings back up the Executive Order then they can do so. In fact, that's one argument they make in their brief. However, it is unlikely Top Secret intelligence is involved, and even if it were, redacted or summarized reports can be provided that don't require a security clearance. That burden of proof is on the government. They made that argument so they have to back it up.
They can also invoke state secrets privilege, or even provide documents in camera to the judge. You don't seem to understand what has actually happened in court so far. The Federal District Judge has not ruled on whether or not the order is proper. He has simply restrained certain portions of the EO from being enforced as he believes the plaintiffs have both the standing and legal arguments to win an injunction against the EO on Constitutional grounds. No one is bigger than the Constitution. The Judge has a hearing set to hear full arguments from both sides -- if the government proves its case he will not issue an injunction, and the TRO will be lifted.
Right now would be the perfect time for anyone with bad intent who wants in to hurry up and get in while the Federal officials are distracted and busy arguing back and forth rather than unifying and backing up what the president says.
So, they didn't have time to do that in the prior decades before Trump became President? How many times did Trump say publicly he was going to ban Muslims? You don't think terrorists know who the President is or didn't hear about any of the prior 50+ times that he said he wanted to ban Muslims?
We are to believe terrorists are so sophisticated that they can forge visas or refugee documents, construct elaborate personas and identities to appear to be a law-abiding student, doctor, businessman, tourist, or refugee, but they are too dumb to use a calendar and mark down the date of Trump's inauguration as the cutoff for when they need their terrorist operatives to be in the US?
Trump's Executive Order is so necessary for national security that a court shouldn't even be allowed to pause it for 1 minute to check its Constitutionality, but Trump taking 8 days to sign it was just fine? How is that even remotely logical? Is your argument, then, that Trump risked our national security by not having the order ready to sign the first day he took office? Because Trump has said that any attack that takes place while his ban is blocked is on the judge. Does that mean any attacker that entered before the ban is Trump's responsibility? If an attacker is from one of the countries that Trump didn't include does that mean that attack is Trump's fault?
If Trump was so concerned about people from those 7 countries then why didn't he also sign an Executive Order that re-instated the domestic registration part of NSEERS? Could it be because Trump's Executive Order was just security theater and wasn't meant to make us safer? After all, doesn't his EO just completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of people from those countries already here? Obama's admin has stopped using NSEERS for years before he dismantled it in late December. Why wouldn't Trump immediately reinstate NSEERS? After all, it had never been ruled Unconstitutional. Sure, security experts don't believe it makes us that much safer, but aren't you the one who believes anything is justified if it saves just one life?
I look forward to seeing your reasoning as to how Trump didn't harm our national security by not being ready to sign the EO right after he was inaugurated. And, obviously, I know you have detailed arguments for why Trump hasn't re-started NSEERS and why he hadn't done anything about hundreds of thousands of people already here.
It couldn't be that our vetting for visas is already terrific, and that the refugee vetting process is already extremely tight and effective. Because, as you've stated, the standard is "if just one life can be saved." Guess what? Unless you block 100% of immigration from every single country in the world, build massive walls along the southern and northern US border, ban US citizens from traveling in/out of the country, heavily mine our coastline, block the import of all foreign goods, and strip US Citizens of all their Constitutional rights, you will never stop finding ways to save "just one life."
I'd much rather be dead than live somewhere like that. Oddly enough, our Founding Fathers felt the exact same way.
