The Judicial Branch now determines immigration policy

[Dragonlady]

The US Constitution says nothing about immigration legal or not. It does however state a US President is in charge of securing our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

Even though the EO says nothing about Muslims, they are trying to say it goes against our freedom of religion. Yes, we have freedom of religion for our citizens, but how the court was able to extend that right outside of our borders is beyond me.

Ray, you either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. The United States was originally settled by people fleeing the religious persecution of the Reformation, and the political power that Catholic Popes had over the crown heads of Europe at the time. That you would now ban a particular religion from immigration runs in direct opposition of the founding principles of your nation.

You either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. "No religious test" is right in the Constitution. It's not one set of rules to get into the country and another when you get there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I hope the 9th Circus Court of appeals will rule as they did for Obama and keep the separations of powers as they should be..

Nope, they ruled this morning:

Appeals court denies Trump request to immediately reinstate travel ban

Off we go to SCOTUS.. Right after the presentations on Monday to the Circus..

They could still see it Trump's way, it's just that it isn't off to a good start.

Not sure what they based their decision on.. its a slam dunk in Trumps favor.. The law is clear.. Definitely time to clean out the Judiciary filled hacktavisits..

They are just blowing it off until after the weekend. But again, it is the 9th circus court so they will probably pave the way to a Supreme Court hearing.

You they are wasting money and trying to buy time like Eric Holder in his sanctuary law suit on behalf of San Francisco..

It's a major temper tantrum by the ultra left.

 

[OldLady]

Should the black robes also be given security briefings like the President has so they can better determine who is safe to bring into the country or should they just wing it like they are doing now?

I'm thinking the later cuz they are so damned enlightened and intelligent they don't need to know such trivial things.

After all, immigration is a natural right that the Founding Fathers would have supported but simply knew that it was so self evident that they need not put such trivial matters into the Constitution.

They're not winging it.
No refugee from those seven countries has carried out a terrorist attack here. You know why? Because we are very very careful about who we accept. If Trump wants to make us safer, I'm all for it, but this half-assed E.O. was not the right way, and his language about excepting "minority religions" from the ban, and his campaign rhetoric about a "Muslim ban" will go against him. It shows intent to discriminate based on religion.

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

The Constitution is a living document and the founders foresaw that things would change. So they gave us a way to change it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. 5/9 is as you say not based in the Constitution, it is a judicial fiat and the justices who vote for that are criminals

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

 

[Toro]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

 

[kaz]

Should the black robes also be given security briefings like the President has so they can better determine who is safe to bring into the country or should they just wing it like they are doing now?

I'm thinking the later cuz they are so damned enlightened and intelligent they don't need to know such trivial things.

After all, immigration is a natural right that the Founding Fathers would have supported but simply knew that it was so self evident that they need not put such trivial matters into the Constitution.

They're not winging it.
No refugee from those seven countries has carried out a terrorist attack here. You know why? Because we are very very careful about who we accept. If Trump wants to make us safer, I'm all for it, but this half-assed E.O. was not the right way, and his language about excepting "minority religions" from the ban, and his campaign rhetoric about a "Muslim ban" will go against him. It shows intent to discriminate based on religion.

Yes, only the best can walk across the southern border, they are thoroughly screened. As for VISAs, how do we vet people who's governments are hostile to us (e.g., Iran) or non existent (e.g., Somalia) again?

 

[OldLady]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The US Constitution says nothing about immigration legal or not. It does however state a US President is in charge of securing our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

Even though the EO says nothing about Muslims, they are trying to say it goes against our freedom of religion. Yes, we have freedom of religion for our citizens, but how the court was able to extend that right outside of our borders is beyond me.

Ray, you either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. The United States was originally settled by people fleeing the religious persecution of the Reformation, and the political power that Catholic Popes had over the crown heads of Europe at the time. That you would now ban a particular religion from immigration runs in direct opposition of the founding principles of your nation.

You either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. "No religious test" is right in the Constitution. It's not one set of rules to get into the country and another when you get there.

There isn't one now. That's why MOST Muslims are still allowed in the country.

 

[kaz]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

All groups other than Jewish get more conservative as they get more wealthy. The problem isn't that Democrats who aren't white, it's that they bring in the worst of the worst economically, the poor and uneducated. Then that has the double effect of taxing our system and burying us in cost. They have to keep the stream going though because over time and as they become more successful, they switch parties in greater and greater numbers

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

 

[kaz]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

You don't really understand what he said. Put down your bias and read with intellectual honesty

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

Of course I believe it. Why do you think Democrats fight so hard for immigration? Why do you think they pander to them like getting them on social programs, allowing them to attend our schools, sanctuary cites, and even give them drivers licenses?

For crying out loud, the Democrats stopped Kate's Law which would have imprisoned illegals who are felons and keep coming back.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

All groups other than Jewish get more conservative as they get more wealthy. The problem isn't that Democrats who aren't white, it's that they bring in the worst of the worst economically, the poor and uneducated. Then that has the double effect of taxing our system and burying us in cost. They have to keep the stream going though because over time and as they become more successful, they switch parties in greater and greater numbers

Yes, that may be true down the road. But for now, they look at the statistics and realize where their bread is buttered.

Our blacks have been here for generations, yet they almost exclusively vote Democrat and have been for years. Look at the Hispanic vote or Asian vote. Mostly Democrat.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

The left can't comprehend what they lost in the last election.. A few people do like Sarah Silverman a damn comedian of all things..

 

[kaz]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

Of course I believe it. Why do you think Democrats fight so hard for immigration? Why do you think they pander to them like getting them on social programs, allowing them to attend our schools, sanctuary cites, and even give them drivers licenses?

For crying out loud, the Democrats stopped Kate's Law which would have imprisoned illegals who are felons and keep coming back.

You realize the only thing she saw in your post was "color."

You can say you're against poor and uneducated dragging down our system, the rise of crime as criminals come here fill our jails and just keep coming back, coming here are disproportionately poor and uneducated driving up our taxes and debts, we should be able to check who is coming here to ensure they are not criminals, are not carrying diseases and can support themselves, no one should come here then go on welfare whatever color they are before even becoming a citizen and we need to secure our borders.

Now you if you read that probably didn't notice I said the word "color."

And yet if she read it, that was the ONLY word she saw

 

[nat4900]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.

District court judges (this one in WA was appointed by GWB) rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a governmental policy............See, that wasn't that hard.....

Now, Gorshun as a constitutionalist, during his hearing will have to either "defend" Trump's error in going beyond the Constitution......or label Trump a moron......Tough going, don't you think?

 

[Toro]

I'm not sure what laws Trump has broken exactly with his temporary immigration ban. Perhaps someone could tell me.


Additionally, it now appears that Progressives have given the courts the duty of deciding what immigrants can enter the country and which can't. Perhaps they could then show me in the Constitution where this is exactly.

But then, just because it is not written in the Constitution does not mean it is not implied to be there, right Progressives? For you see, the Constitution is a living breathing document that allows Progressives to dictate what it really means, or should have said all along had the writers of the Constitution not been slave owners.

Are you saying the courts shouldn't have overturned Obama's EOs?

The “decision marks the 12th time the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of executive power,” Heritage Foundation legal expert Elizabeth Slattery explains.​

Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against the Obama Administration’s Unconstitutional Power Grab | myHeritage

We know that..

To over turn a presidents E. O. Only the Supreme Court or congress can do that..

Guess who is going to stack the books against the left?

It hasn't been overturned. It has been blocked by a Federal court and upheld in an appellate court. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

This is how the legal process works.

We have a republic of laws, not a monarchy.

 

[kaz]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

All groups other than Jewish get more conservative as they get more wealthy. The problem isn't that Democrats who aren't white, it's that they bring in the worst of the worst economically, the poor and uneducated. Then that has the double effect of taxing our system and burying us in cost. They have to keep the stream going though because over time and as they become more successful, they switch parties in greater and greater numbers

Yes, that may be true down the road. But for now, they look at the statistics and realize where their bread is buttered.

Our blacks have been here for generations, yet they almost exclusively vote Democrat and have been for years. Look at the Hispanic vote or Asian vote. Mostly Democrat.

Agreed. That's why I said "they need to keep them streaming through." They need to keep filling us with poor and uneducated to keep the Democrat party alive. That's why they also fight policies that help poor (any color) get off welfare, from having jobs (high minimum wage) or anything else that allow them to move up the value chain and stop being liberal

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't need immigration any longer, as a nation; at least not at the rates and numbers that we experienced in the past.

YOU don't need immigration any longer. I don't need immigration any longer. But the Democrat party does for political reasons. Their goal is to make whites a minority in our very own country. People of color heavily vote Democrat. So by bringing in all these people, they will eventually secure a one-party government with no real opposition.

You actually believe that shit? My suggestion to you is, MOVE. Where I live everyone's white and everyone speaks English. You'd be happy as a clam. Let the more advanced members of society get on with it.

Of course I believe it. Why do you think Democrats fight so hard for immigration? Why do you think they pander to them like getting them on social programs, allowing them to attend our schools, sanctuary cites, and even give them drivers licenses?

For crying out loud, the Democrats stopped Kate's Law which would have imprisoned illegals who are felons and keep coming back.

You realize the only thing she saw in your post was "color."

You can say you're against poor and uneducated dragging down our system, the rise of crime as criminals come here fill our jails and just keep coming back, coming here are disproportionately poor and uneducated driving up our taxes and debts, we should be able to check who is coming here to ensure they are not criminals, are not carrying diseases and can support themselves, no one should come here then go on welfare whatever color they are before even becoming a citizen and we need to secure our borders.

Now you if you read that probably didn't notice I said the word "color."

And yet if she read it, that was the ONLY word she saw

When it comes to the left, race is always a default position.

If these groups of people were known to vote Republican, you'd see how fast that wall would have been built years ago and how Trump's EO would have looked like a warm up act. For crying out loud, Obama had food stamp commercials running in Mexico.