Lets get one thing straight

[Pogo]

3 million votes from illegals in one state doesn't mean shit.

Dey sure don't. Neither does any other alt-fact you pull out of your ass.

 

[Care4all]

Donald Trump's EO is clearly not a "Muslim ban," because so many Muslim countries are excluded from it. If anything, it is a ban of Muslims from the most dangerous countries, just seven of them if memory serves. This is not the same thing as a Muslim ban per se.

Then again liberals and their media propagandists don't care about any inkling of truth.

The restriction should have included Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi clerics are actually the number one promoter of terror and the large monies that go into Saudi Arabia's coffers pays for the construction of hardline Wahhabi mosques all across this nation as well as others.

Sure, but Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia. He couldn't afford to put them on the list.

He didn't make the list...obama did jackass......

Obama's list was based on a specific, then current, actionable threat from those countries. Those specific threats were soon removed. Trump didn't have any specific actionable threats to determine which countries to put on his list. .He campaigned on banning Muslims, and now he's trying to do it. That simple.

they were removed....so we defeated isis in Iraq, a country on the list? And Iran...they aren't still exporting terrorism and paying for it with the 150 billion dollars obama gave them...in untraceable cash......? And Yemen...seems to me an American Navy Seal died last week in an anti-terrorism raid....is that country still a problem.......?

You guys are both blind and fucking stupid....really fucking stupid.....

What was Obama's list from 2014 for....do you know?

 

[Care4all]

No terrorism has come from those seven.

Tell that to Obama, who compiled the list.

What was Obama's list for, that they compiled back in 2014, do you know?

 

[2aguy]

The restriction should have included Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi clerics are actually the number one promoter of terror and the large monies that go into Saudi Arabia's coffers pays for the construction of hardline Wahhabi mosques all across this nation as well as others.

Sure, but Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia. He couldn't afford to put them on the list.

He didn't make the list...obama did jackass......

Obama's list was based on a specific, then current, actionable threat from those countries. Those specific threats were soon removed. Trump didn't have any specific actionable threats to determine which countries to put on his list. .He campaigned on banning Muslims, and now he's trying to do it. That simple.

they were removed....so we defeated isis in Iraq, a country on the list? And Iran...they aren't still exporting terrorism and paying for it with the 150 billion dollars obama gave them...in untraceable cash......? And Yemen...seems to me an American Navy Seal died last week in an anti-terrorism raid....is that country still a problem.......?

You guys are both blind and fucking stupid....really fucking stupid.....

What was Obama's list from 2014 for....do you know?

Yep...

US travel ban: Why these seven countries? - BBC News

In December 2015 Congress passed a law - created by senators from both parties, and supported and signed by the White House - that removed waiver benefits for foreign nationals who had visited certain countries since March 2011. The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a "safe haven" for terrorists.

And Trump has put a 90 day, Temporary......let's repeat that for you left wingers out there.......Temporary, halt to immigration from these 7 countries...something obama should have done when he was in office......

And again, these are 7 muslim countries out of 50...for you left wingers....that means 43 muslim countries are not on that list...and that immigrants from those countries are fine to come into our country....including countries with the largest muslim populations....

 

[S.J.]

No terrorism has come from those seven.

Tell that to Obama, who compiled the list.

What was Obama's list for, that they compiled back in 2014, do you know?

Yeah, why?

 

[Care4all]

Sure, but Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia. He couldn't afford to put them on the list.

He didn't make the list...obama did jackass......

Obama's list was based on a specific, then current, actionable threat from those countries. Those specific threats were soon removed. Trump didn't have any specific actionable threats to determine which countries to put on his list. .He campaigned on banning Muslims, and now he's trying to do it. That simple.

they were removed....so we defeated isis in Iraq, a country on the list? And Iran...they aren't still exporting terrorism and paying for it with the 150 billion dollars obama gave them...in untraceable cash......? And Yemen...seems to me an American Navy Seal died last week in an anti-terrorism raid....is that country still a problem.......?

You guys are both blind and fucking stupid....really fucking stupid.....

What was Obama's list from 2014 for....do you know?

Yep...

US travel ban: Why these seven countries? - BBC News

In December 2015 Congress passed a law - created by senators from both parties, and supported and signed by the White House - that removed waiver benefits for foreign nationals who had visited certain countries since March 2011. The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a "safe haven" for terrorists.

And Trump has put a 90 day, Temporary......let's repeat that for you left wingers out there.......Temporary, halt to immigration from these 7 countries...something obama should have done when he was in office......

And again, these are 7 muslim countries out of 50...for you left wingers....that means 43 muslim countries are not on that list...and that immigrants from those countries are fine to come into our country....including countries with the largest muslim populations....

so this was NOT the Obama E/O that Trump was copying but a law by congress...?

for england and ireland and scotland and france and germany and australia and 38 nations in total that are considered ''friendly nations''....

the law did not affect those 6 nations, you do know that, right? Those 6 Nations immigration law stayed the same....obama's e/o and later congress's law enforcing it, was a law written and directed for our ''friendly nations'' who are allowed to travel here

WITHOUT A VISA

with a VISA WAIVER

where they did not have to be extensively screened to come here....if they wanted to come to the USA they simply needed an airplane ticket....to come here, with going through no lengthy VISA process of vetting.

With all of the terrorist attacks taking place in Europe by citizens of our friendly nations, Obama and congress changed the law on WAIVING the VISA process and made it that citizens from the friendly countries that were duel citizens of those other countries WERE stopped from using the VISA WAIVER program and had to use the VISA program to come here.

NO ONE WAS BANNED from coming here, duel citizens and those who traveled there within the past 6 years were told to use the VISA program to come here and NOT the VISA WAIVER program.

 

[S.J.]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

 

[francoHFW]

All BS- Obama already did this lol...moratorium and then great vetting that takes 2+ years. And he had a reason.

 

[francoHFW]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

That's unconstitutional, dingbat dupe.

 

[S.J.]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

That's unconstitutional, dingbat dupe.

No non-citizen has a right to come into this country unless we give them permission. The Constitution does not require us to let ANYONE in we don't want in and the president has the power to make that decision, dupe.

 

[BULLDOG]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

That's unconstitutional, dingbat dupe.

No non-citizen has a right to come into this country unless we give them permission. The Constitution does not require us to let ANYONE in we don't want in and the president has the power to make that decision, dupe.

No. Actually, our laws make that decision.

 

[S.J.]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

That's unconstitutional, dingbat dupe.

No non-citizen has a right to come into this country unless we give them permission. The Constitution does not require us to let ANYONE in we don't want in and the president has the power to make that decision, dupe.

No. Actually, our laws make that decision.

The Constitution IS the law, dumbass. And where, in the Constitution does it say any non-citizen has a right to come into this country?

 

[BULLDOG]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

That's unconstitutional, dingbat dupe.

No non-citizen has a right to come into this country unless we give them permission. The Constitution does not require us to let ANYONE in we don't want in and the president has the power to make that decision, dupe.

No. Actually, our laws make that decision.

The Constitution IS the law, dumbass. And where, in the Constitution does it say any non-citizen has a right to come into this country?

1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.

2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.

3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*

4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.

5. Family Reunification Rights.* The tragic stories of separated families bring out yet another constitutional right at stake that few have commented on: The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the fundamental right to family relationships. Family reunification is also of primary importance in immigration law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges emphasized how multiple constitutional rights magnified the harm of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The constitutional violations in that case were made worse because there was discrimination—over something as important as the fundamental right to marry. Today, these constitutional violations are worse because the order discriminates on the basis of religion, nationality, and ethnicity, over rights as important as due process, the right to family relationships, and the right not to be excluded unlawfully. article, constitutional rights magnify their power when they share reinforcing interests.*

There will always be cases where national security interests outweigh constitutional rights. But those should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not as a ban that stereotypes and discriminates against an entire group of people. *

 

[S.J.]

We're still not free from political correctness. We need to either acknowledge that it's MUSLIMS who should be detained (no matter what country they come from) or just put a halt to immigration period.

That's unconstitutional, dingbat dupe.

No non-citizen has a right to come into this country unless we give them permission. The Constitution does not require us to let ANYONE in we don't want in and the president has the power to make that decision, dupe.

No. Actually, our laws make that decision.

The Constitution IS the law, dumbass. And where, in the Constitution does it say any non-citizen has a right to come into this country?

1. Equal Protection. This order raises discrimination concerns surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, singling out individuals for their religion and nationality by focusing on seven predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally, our immigration laws already forbid such discrimination in issuing visas.

2. First Amendment. The order raises religious freedom concerns, including issues surrounding the ban on government establishment of religion. The law suspends admission of all refugees but asks the secretary of homeland security to “prioritize refugee claims” by members of a “minority religion” in a given country. This effectively means explicitly deprioritizing Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries. As Mark Joseph Stern has explained, the apparent preference for Christians of the order itself as well as Trump’s long history of comments supporting a “Muslim ban” will not help the law’s success in the courts.

3. Due Process. The procedures used to enforce the order, if they can be called procedures, are arbitrary. Past Supreme Court cases have permitted individuals to be excluded at the border but only after some modicum of individualized review and administrative process, authorized by laws and regulations. outright refusal to follow court orders. Moreover, green card holders have enhanced rights compared to non-green card holders against arbitrary treatment.*

4. Habeas Corpus. Lawyers at airports have been filing habeas corpus petitions around the clock for people being detained. In recent years, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections of habeas corpus for noncitizens repeatedly in rulings in cases brought by Guantánamo detainees. Zadvydas v. Davis. The national security or “plenary” power over immigration did not faze the justices in such rulings.

5. Family Reunification Rights.* The tragic stories of separated families bring out yet another constitutional right at stake that few have commented on: The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the fundamental right to family relationships. Family reunification is also of primary importance in immigration law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges emphasized how multiple constitutional rights magnified the harm of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The constitutional violations in that case were made worse because there was discrimination—over something as important as the fundamental right to marry. Today, these constitutional violations are worse because the order discriminates on the basis of religion, nationality, and ethnicity, over rights as important as due process, the right to family relationships, and the right not to be excluded unlawfully. article, constitutional rights magnify their power when they share reinforcing interests.*

There will always be cases where national security interests outweigh constitutional rights. But those should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not as a ban that stereotypes and discriminates against an entire group of people. *

Distraction. I'm still waiting for you to show me where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, non-citizens have a right to come into this country.

 

[Claudette]

Donald Trump's EO is clearly not a "Muslim ban," because so many Muslim countries are excluded from it. If anything, it is a ban of Muslims from the most dangerous countries, just seven of them if memory serves. This is not the same thing as a Muslim ban per se.

Then again liberals and their media propagandists don't care about any inkling of truth.

I agree and what he did was approved by Congress and the Constitution.

Douchebag and Carter did the same and you never heard a word against it by anyone and no Fed Judge ever put a stop to it.

Folks seem to have forgotten that the perpetrators of 9-11 all had visa's to be in the country. It took years to set up 9-11 and who'd to say some others who are here on visa's aren't doing the same??

Trump is trying to keep all Americans safe and anyone who doesn't realize this is simply because they don't want to. They would rather demonize Trump.

 

[S.J.]

Still waiting.

 

[francoHFW]

Still waiting.

You can't discriminate due to religion DUHHHHH. Thank god for the constitution- to protect us from brainwashed functional hater morons like you. Breaking for dupes: Obama ALREADY hade a moratorium and fixed the vetting system in 2015- Vetting has ALREADY been extreme since then. Add to it maybe but stop believing your own hate/bs propaganda.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Donald Trump's EO is clearly not a "Muslim ban," because so many Muslim countries are excluded from it. If anything, it is a ban of Muslims from the most dangerous countries, just seven of them if memory serves. This is not the same thing as a Muslim ban per se.

Then again liberals and their media propagandists don't care about any inkling of truth.

Since 9/11, how many of those countries have been responsible for any terrorist activity in the US? White house lawyers couldn't come up with a single one when the judge asked them.

Doesn't matter one bit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still waiting.

Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

 

[BULLDOG]

Donald Trump's EO is clearly not a "Muslim ban," because so many Muslim countries are excluded from it. If anything, it is a ban of Muslims from the most dangerous countries, just seven of them if memory serves. This is not the same thing as a Muslim ban per se.

Then again liberals and their media propagandists don't care about any inkling of truth.

Since 9/11, how many of those countries have been responsible for any terrorist activity in the US? White house lawyers couldn't come up with a single one when the judge asked them.

Doesn't matter one bit.

It does if you want to use the excuse that they pose an immanent threat.