Calls To Ban Muslims From Entering the U.S. Are Offensive And Unconstitutional

[Rambunctious]

President Trump gets a green light from me...

 

[Rustic]

...Says Mike Pence.

The Constitution applies to us citizens first and foremost... letting deadbeats into this country is not constitutional.

 

[Rambunctious]

The executive order was totally constitutional

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

...Says Mike Pence.

Says Chuck Schumer

FLASHBACK: Chuck Schumer in 2015: “REFUGEE PAUSE MAY BE NECESSARY!”

 

[Contumacious]

...Says Mike Pence.

The Constitution applies to us citizens first and foremost... letting deadbeats into this country is not constitutional.

Then stay the fuck away from their countries.

The US has decimated Syria . Since 2008 the US has been interfering there . Her people are now international refugees. The US has destroyed their industry and infrastructure,

Don't fucking come here telling us that we don't owe them big time. Don't tell me that they don't have a right to enter the US.


.

 

[namvet]

That's a 5-year-old in handcuffs.

I know, the Trump-thugs just got a serious tingle up their leg.

whatcha got there bubba the Hamas family?? bet that kid can field strip an AK-47 blind folded

 

[Flash]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

 

[Contumacious]

Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban

.

 

[namvet]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

link

 

[Flash]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

link

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

 

[namvet]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

link

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

...Says Mike Pence.

Exactly., so ruled the DC Court of Appeals


Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal


"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence." Appellants argue that the Department violated the statute in drawing an explicit distinction between Vietnamese nationals and nationals of other countries when refusing to process the visas of the screened out Vietnamese immigrants. Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. Appellees maintain the goal of encouraging voluntary repatriation and the aims of the CPA certainly provide a rational basis for the practices and policies in question.


We agree with appellants' interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language. While we need not decide in the case before us whether the State Department could never justify an exception under the provision, such a justification, if possible at all, must be most compelling--perhaps a national emergency. We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications simply on a preferred "rational basis." Cf. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 453 (S.D.Fla.1980) (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a), INS has no authority to discriminate on the basis of national origin, except perhaps by promulgating regulations in a time of national emergency).


45 F.3d 469

310 U.S.App.D.C. 168

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees



.

Trump's executive order is not unconstitutional on the basis which officials are chosen to hold executive levels of government, called "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign as well as domestic, to bear faith and swear allegiance to the same". Part of the role of government is clearly written to provide for that common defense of a nation. Given that our nation suffered an attack on American soil through 9-11, against a group professing to believe in an extreme Islamic view of faith, and that such extremists reside in regions to which immigrants are also seeking entry into the United States. Therefore, such actions to defend this nation "against all enemies foreign" fits within the structure and duty outlined under the Constitution, and with that oath of office.

The proper and more accurate question to be asked is this:
Should we allow any immigrant entry on the basis of their desire to become Americans OVER the security and safety of those citizens who already reside in the United States that our government is actually sworn to protect?

 

[Flash]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

link

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

I just ask the Moon Bats to show me where Trump banned Muslims.

You failed in your attempt.

Any more Moon Bat input?

 

[Contumacious]

...Says Mike Pence.

Exactly., so ruled the DC Court of Appeals


Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal


"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence." Appellants argue that the Department violated the statute in drawing an explicit distinction between Vietnamese nationals and nationals of other countries when refusing to process the visas of the screened out Vietnamese immigrants. Appellants assert this statute compels this court to invalidate any attempt to draw a distinction based on nationality in the issuance of visas. In contrast, appellees urge us to adopt the position that so long as they possess a rational basis for making the distinction, they are not in violation of the statute. Appellees maintain the goal of encouraging voluntary repatriation and the aims of the CPA certainly provide a rational basis for the practices and policies in question.


We agree with appellants' interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language. While we need not decide in the case before us whether the State Department could never justify an exception under the provision, such a justification, if possible at all, must be most compelling--perhaps a national emergency. We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications simply on a preferred "rational basis." Cf. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 453 (S.D.Fla.1980) (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a), INS has no authority to discriminate on the basis of national origin, except perhaps by promulgating regulations in a time of national emergency).


45 F.3d 469

310 U.S.App.D.C. 168

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees



.

Trump's executive order is not unconstitutional on the basis which officials are chosen to hold executive levels of government, called "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign as well as domestic, to bear faith and swear allegiance to the same". Part of the role of government is clearly written to provide for that common defense of a nation. Given that our nation suffered an attack on American soil through 9-11, against a group professing to believe in an extreme Islamic view of faith, and that such extremists reside in regions to which immigrants are also seeking entry into the United States. Therefore, such actions to defend this nation "against all enemies foreign" fits within the structure and duty outlined under the Constitution, and with that oath of office.

The proper and more accurate question to be asked is this:
Should we allow any immigrant entry on the basis of their desire to become Americans OVER the security and safety of those citizens who already reside in the United States that our government is actually sworn to protect?

The Precedent established by

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VIETNAMESE ASYLUM SEEKERS; Thua Van Le;
Em Van Vo; Thu Hoa Thi Dang; Truc Hoa Thi Vo, Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, et al., Appellees

shows that the Prez must allege and prove that those 7 countries constitute an emergent danger to the US. But those countries have never caused the US any problem.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE have. Yet amazingly those countries are NOT on the list.

The EO is unconstitutional.

The NY Judge's order will be upheld by the 2nd Cir, Trump can appeal but a 4-4 SCOTUS tie will allow the 2nd Circuit decision to be the law of the land.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

link

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

I just ask the Moon Bats to show me where Trump banned Muslims.

You failed in your attempt.

Any more Moon Bat input?

Read post #72




"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence.


.

 

[Flash]

Can any of you Moon Bats show me where Muslims have been banned?

link

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

I just ask the Moon Bats to show me where Trump banned Muslims.

You failed in your attempt.

Any more Moon Bat input?

Read post #72




"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence.


.

So that means (according to you) when the Kenyan Catastrophe banned Iraqis then he was acting illegally. Why didn't you call for his impeachment?

 

[Contumacious]

link

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

I just ask the Moon Bats to show me where Trump banned Muslims.

You failed in your attempt.

Any more Moon Bat input?

Read post #72




"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence.


.

So that means (according to you) when the Kenyan Catastrophe banned Iraqis then he was acting illegally. Why didn't you call for his impeachment?

There is a huge difference , BTW I voted for Trump



1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

 

[Flash]

The EO is a ban on specified countries. Religion not specified.

Got anything else?.

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

I just ask the Moon Bats to show me where Trump banned Muslims.

You failed in your attempt.

Any more Moon Bat input?

Read post #72




"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence.


.

So that means (according to you) when the Kenyan Catastrophe banned Iraqis then he was acting illegally. Why didn't you call for his impeachment?

There is a huge difference , BTW I voted for Trump



1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

Fuck Obama. Who gives a shit what that affirmative action asshole says?

A law passed by Congress in 1952 gives the President of the US authority to specify countries where immigrants can be banned.

It was legal for Carter to do it. It was legal for Clinton to do it . It was legal for Obama to do it and it sure as hell is legal for Trump to do it.

I will be sure to pass on your ideas on what Trump should do as President the next time I see him. I am sure he will take your advice on how he should run this country.

 

[Contumacious]

you said nothing about religion numb nuts

I just ask the Moon Bats to show me where Trump banned Muslims.

You failed in your attempt.

Any more Moon Bat input?

Read post #72




"appellants claim the discrimination violates 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a) of the INA. This section provides "no person shall ... be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's ... nationality ... or place of residence.


.

So that means (according to you) when the Kenyan Catastrophe banned Iraqis then he was acting illegally. Why didn't you call for his impeachment?

There is a huge difference , BTW I voted for Trump



1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

Fuck Obama. Who gives a shit what that affirmative action asshole says?

A law passed by Congress in 1952 gives the President of the US authority to specify countries where immigrants can be banned.

It was legal for Carter to do it. It was legal for Clinton to do it . It was legal for Obama to do it and it sure as hell is legal for Trump to do it.

I will be sure to pass on your ideas on what Trump should do as President the next time I see him. I am sure he will take your advice on how he should run this country.

He is MY PRESIDENT

I did not elect a tyrant

I was there during the inauguration.


He will have my support for any EO or statute which is Constitutional.

Otherwise I will adamantly dissent.

.


.

 

[Flash]

[QU

He is MY PRESIDENT

I did not elect a tyrant

I was there during the inauguration.


He will have my support for any EO or statute which is Constitutional.

Otherwise I will adamantly dissent.

.


.

Only a stupid Moon Bat would dissent against stopping these assholes from coming into this country.

One thing about about you Moon Bats is that you do love your Muslims and Mexicans. It is really comical to observe.