Travel Ban 2.0 DejaVu?

[Mr.Blonde]

These words will hopefully sink the President's dream of shutting the door. This is the Court's argument. We know what he's actually aiming for; I recall him saying not long ago that they may well add additional countries to the list as they go along. This is what I fear--that if this is approved, it will only be the beginning.

If the Republicans had balls they would start the impeachment process on these judges that find the ban unconstitutional.

The Constitution gives all immigration power to the Congress and it is unlimited (we can reject people for any reason).

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Meaning yes if the Congress wants to ban all Muslims it can. If the power isn't so broad that we can't ban people for any reason then that means people have a right to come into the country that aren't citizens which means we aren't a country.

These judges are taking away the Congress' enumerated power which they should be impeached for

 

[Avatar4321]

What exactly is so outrageous about finding out who is coming to our country? I find corrupt judges making political decisions they have no authority to make on baseless arguments much more outrageous and dangerous to our nation

Do you have some kind of law degree, maybe in constitutional law, or are you just talking out of your ass with zero knowledge of judicial procedures

I already told you yes the last time you asked this.

And more importantly I read the decision. The judge stated there was no primary secular purpose for the order (apparently national security and immigration regulation don't count) and said he didn't have to do any more analysis.

That's it. It blatantly political and ignores the actual order.

 

[NightFox]

Hawaii and Maryland have put a STOP on Travel Ban 2.0 before it could take effect today. I say BRAVO!!!!

Maybe it is a political maneuver, "judicial overreach," as our President says, but if so, I'm glad there are still people in this country willing to go out on a limb and fight outrageous ideas such as the Executive Order, whether it is exactly within the scope of their job or not.

Last night Trump referred to 2.0 as a "watered down version" of his original E.O., which was lambasted by the courts on numerous fronts. Now he's making noise about going back to the original order--yeah, that should work well! It will be a sweet day when the Supreme Court tells him to quit shitting on the principles of this country and "BTW NO, you can't do this, so stop trying."

Don't get too excited, word on the street is that Travel Ban v3.0 is in beta and will be released soon; apparently it cuts the number of countries down from 6 to 0 and imposes severe travel and immigration restrictions as well as really, really, really (and this time we mean it) extreme vetting of travelers coming from both Venus and Mars; the Solar System will never be the same.

 

[TNHarley]

These words will hopefully sink the President's dream of shutting the door. This is the Court's argument. We know what he's actually aiming for; I recall him saying not long ago that they may well add additional countries to the list as they go along. This is what I fear--that if this is approved, it will only be the beginning.

If the Republicans had balls they would start the impeachment process on these judges that find the ban unconstitutional.

The Constitution gives all immigration power to the Congress and it is unlimited (we can reject people for any reason).

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Meaning yes if the Congress wants to ban all Muslims it can. If the power isn't so broad that we can't ban people for any reason then that means people have a right to come into the country that aren't citizens which means we aren't a country.

These judges are taking away the Congress' enumerated power which they should be impeached for

The President can ban foreigners if he wants. If he has a reason. Those countries on the list apparently do NOT aid in the vetting process. They are war torn and invaded by our enemy.
Reason enough! He don't need Congress on this

 

[Avatar4321]

Flynn

He was no democrat

Still waiting for those Democrats Rump appointed

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa.../10-things-you-didnt-know-about-michael-Flynn
Its like you know nothing. He was even in obamas cabinet.

Registered Democrats dont become Rumps national security advisor,
Registered Democrats do not become keynote speakers at a republican convention

I don't even know why I bother with you. Its bad to lie to other people. Its even worse to lie to yourself.
Enjoy your delusion, dumbfuck.

When did the last Democrat give a keynote speech at a Republican convention?

Zell Miller 2004. Could be others. Don't remember off the top of my head

 

[Avatar4321]

Two questions I haven't seen an answer for:

1) what religion does the order establish?
2)how is national security and immigration regularly not a primary secular purpose?

 

[OldLady]

I believe the "constitutionality" premise is that our government is not supposed to impose any laws or actions based on a person's religion. It isn't the rights of the foreigners here that are being questioned. It's the imposition against our government taking action based on the fact of a religion. That is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is what the Hawaii court is maintaining, I believe. The previous court had similar concerns.

I hope the Supreme Court will review this quickly and get it over with. From all I've heard, the President will get this travel ban in the end. I just hope he doesn't fiddle around until Gorsich is confirmed and sitting on the Court before he appeals the decision of the lower court. This limbo is not just hard for the people from those six countries, it is also fairly embarrassing that our current administration can't come up with a seemingly acceptable E.O., even on the second try.

 

[JoeMoma]

What exactly is so outrageous about finding out who is coming to our country? I find corrupt judges making political decisions they have no authority to make on baseless arguments much more outrageous and dangerous to our nation

Do you have some kind of law degree, maybe in constitutional law, or are you just talking out of your ass with zero knowledge of judicial procedures

Lots of stupid people have degrees. It does not take a law degree to understand the language of the constitution and the law that gives the president authority to make decisions about immigration.

 

[TNHarley]

I believe the "constitutionality" premise is that our government is not supposed to impose any laws or actions based on a person's religion. It isn't the rights of the foreigners here that are being questioned. It's the imposition against our government taking action based on the fact of a religion. That is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is what the Hawaii court is maintaining, I believe. The previous court had similar concerns.

I hope the Supreme Court will review this quickly and get it over with. From all I've heard, the President will get this travel ban in the end. I just hope he doesn't fiddle around until Gorsich is confirmed and sitting on the Court before he appeals the decision of the lower court. This limbo is not just hard for the people from those six countries, it is also fairly embarrassing that our current administration can't come up with a seemingly acceptable E.O., even on the second try.

Its not their fault. It is activist judges. He has FULL AUTHORITY to do this. It is based on CURRENT legislation and OUTSTANDING policies from the previous admin. Those countries wont help us vet their refugees. They are war torn from OUR enemies.
This isn't 1/100th of the bad thing democrats have done previously. Remember when FDR got our political activist SC to validate internment for CITIZENS? THAT was bullshit and a abuse of power. This EO is LEGIT.

 

[Avatar4321]

I believe the "constitutionality" premise is that our government is not supposed to impose any laws or actions based on a person's religion. It isn't the rights of the foreigners here that are being questioned. It's the imposition against our government taking action based on the fact of a religion. That is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is what the Hawaii court is maintaining, I believe. The previous court had similar concerns.

I hope the Supreme Court will review this quickly and get it over with. From all I've heard, the President will get this travel ban in the end. I just hope he doesn't fiddle around until Gorsich is confirmed and sitting on the Court before he appeals the decision of the lower court. This limbo is not just hard for the people from those six countries, it is also fairly embarrassing that our current administration can't come up with a seemingly acceptable E.O., even on the second try.

The eo doesn't mention religion. So how does it establish a religion? How does it not have a primary secular purpose when its done explicitly for national security purposes and to help the immigration process?

 

[JoeMoma]

quit shitting on the principles of this country
A principle of our country is to accept refugees from war torn countries invaded by our enemies even though we cant vet them and have NO IDEA Who they are?
LOL

we cant vet them and have NO IDEA Who they are?
I've tole ya and TOLE ya, We do vet them for two f-ing years and we know as well as anyone can who they are. No system is perfect; I'm all for improvements, too. It is the ban that won't solve anything. Do a deep dive into how to slow/stop terrorist recruitment in this country and stiffen up procedures on Visas, such as looking at their social media (ala San Bernardino). Also look at how to keep would-be terrorists from having their investigations by the FBI ended (two of our most recent terrorist attacks were investigated by the FBI and closed without enough evidence).

Actually, a two year wait doesn't not a vet make. You don't think a terrorist would be willing to just hang out and chill for two years while he waits for a free pass into the united states?

 

[OldLady]

I believe the "constitutionality" premise is that our government is not supposed to impose any laws or actions based on a person's religion. It isn't the rights of the foreigners here that are being questioned. It's the imposition against our government taking action based on the fact of a religion. That is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is what the Hawaii court is maintaining, I believe. The previous court had similar concerns.

I hope the Supreme Court will review this quickly and get it over with. From all I've heard, the President will get this travel ban in the end. I just hope he doesn't fiddle around until Gorsich is confirmed and sitting on the Court before he appeals the decision of the lower court. This limbo is not just hard for the people from those six countries, it is also fairly embarrassing that our current administration can't come up with a seemingly acceptable E.O., even on the second try.

Its not their fault. It is activist judges. He has FULL AUTHORITY to do this. It is based on CURRENT legislation and OUTSTANDING policies from the previous admin. Those countries wont help us vet their refugees. They are war torn from OUR enemies.
This isn't 1/100th of the bad thing democrats have done previously. Remember when FDR got our political activist SC to validate internment for CITIZENS? THAT was bullshit and a abuse of power. This EO is LEGIT.

Since I don't agree with the ban, I'm glad the judges are being activist, but it does seem clear the President can do this. The only issue is that Trump has come out in all his crowing glory and said "I Donald J. Trump, will stop all Muslims from coming into this country." (Or something close to that. I've heard him say it at his rallies.) Rudy Giuliani admitted publicly that Trump asked him how to make a Muslim ban legal. Apparently some cases decided by the court took the law's intent into their decision. If Trump's intent is taken into consideration, and if the SC decides it IS relevant, Trump will lose. Otherwise, he will win.

 

[OldLady]

quit shitting on the principles of this country
A principle of our country is to accept refugees from war torn countries invaded by our enemies even though we cant vet them and have NO IDEA Who they are?
LOL

we cant vet them and have NO IDEA Who they are?
I've tole ya and TOLE ya, We do vet them for two f-ing years and we know as well as anyone can who they are. No system is perfect; I'm all for improvements, too. It is the ban that won't solve anything. Do a deep dive into how to slow/stop terrorist recruitment in this country and stiffen up procedures on Visas, such as looking at their social media (ala San Bernardino). Also look at how to keep would-be terrorists from having their investigations by the FBI ended (two of our most recent terrorist attacks were investigated by the FBI and closed without enough evidence).

Actually, a two year wait doesn't not a vet make. You don't think a terrorist would be willing to just hang out and chill for two years while he waits for a free pass into the united states?

They aren't just waiting. They are being vetted. If we didn't know who they were or where they were from, they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of coming into this country. Can a terrorist "fake it?" Sure, a good one with no previous history. If all of our terrorist attacks in this country had been by refugees or recent immigrants from the M.E., especially from the countries listed in the EO, I would probably feel differently. But we are barking up the wrong tree. It is not going to accomplish anything, except to make some people who hate foreigners happy.

 

[NightFox]

Since I don't agree with the ban, I'm glad the judges are being activist,

...and this is exactly how the rule of law and the mechanisms designed to ensure checks and balances on federal power are undone.

to wit: "I like the system as long as it does exactly what I want it to, when it doesn't toss the rule book out the window and go with the ends justifies the means route."

Congratulations on becoming part of the problem.

 

[TNHarley]

I believe the "constitutionality" premise is that our government is not supposed to impose any laws or actions based on a person's religion. It isn't the rights of the foreigners here that are being questioned. It's the imposition against our government taking action based on the fact of a religion. That is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is what the Hawaii court is maintaining, I believe. The previous court had similar concerns.

I hope the Supreme Court will review this quickly and get it over with. From all I've heard, the President will get this travel ban in the end. I just hope he doesn't fiddle around until Gorsich is confirmed and sitting on the Court before he appeals the decision of the lower court. This limbo is not just hard for the people from those six countries, it is also fairly embarrassing that our current administration can't come up with a seemingly acceptable E.O., even on the second try.

Its not their fault. It is activist judges. He has FULL AUTHORITY to do this. It is based on CURRENT legislation and OUTSTANDING policies from the previous admin. Those countries wont help us vet their refugees. They are war torn from OUR enemies.
This isn't 1/100th of the bad thing democrats have done previously. Remember when FDR got our political activist SC to validate internment for CITIZENS? THAT was bullshit and a abuse of power. This EO is LEGIT.

Since I don't agree with the ban, I'm glad the judges are being activist, but it does seem clear the President can do this. The only issue is that Trump has come out in all his crowing glory and said "I Donald J. Trump, will stop all Muslims from coming into this country." (Or something close to that. I've heard him say it at his rallies.) Rudy Giuliani admitted publicly that Trump asked him how to make a Muslim ban legal. Apparently some cases decided by the court took the law's intent into their decision. If Trump's intent is taken into consideration, and if the SC decides it IS relevant, Trump will lose. Otherwise, he will win.

Indeed you do. Abuse of power is ok if you agree with it. If it not, all hell break loose. Right?
It is very clear that's what he does. If you bothered to look into it, you would know that. I offered to fill you in and you didn't say anything.

 

[TNHarley]

Since I don't agree with the ban, I'm glad the judges are being activist,

...and this is exactly how the rule of law and the mechanisms designed to ensure checks and balances on federal power are undone.

to wit: "I like the system as long as it does exactly what I want it to, when it doesn't toss the rule book out the window and go with the ends justifies the means route."

Congratulations on becoming part of the problem.

BINGO

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Trump should just stop all immigration, period. We gain nothing with a constant flow of people taking our jobs and sucking up our social resources. Does $20 Trillion in debt ring any bells?

What does our debt have to do with immigration? Absolutely nothing

If these refugees that want to come to the United States don't have any relatives here, no friends to turn to who are already living in this country, don't have a job, don't have any demanding skills to find immediate placement towards a job, don't know the language ... then who will care for them?

You see liberals don't want our government involved in nation building, yet instead they are willing to bring that mess and trouble of these nations into our borders (as if there is a real difference in what that will cost taxpayers). President Hoover had it right with the 1924 Immigration Act. Now this particular act established strict quotas for immigration from Europe, Asia and Africa, but did not limit immigration from North or South America. As long as migrants had a visa and a job, they could stay as long as they wished. Any migrant without a valid visa could be deported at any time, and any migrant, temporary or permanent, could be deported if they became a public burden on taxpayers. Was that deemed unconstitutional, or did our country believe then in its limits and safe guards to protect after our own citizens' interests? Historically we find immigration is revealed and supported as a PRIVILEGE, not a right. There is no Constitutional article or historic measure during our nation's past that deem immigration as a right. Yet liberals are incorrect in their justifications and assumptions if they attempt to lump this together under their many perceptions of what they see as "entitled rights".

 

[Pete7469]

Trump should just stop all immigration, period. We gain nothing with a constant flow of people taking our jobs and sucking up our social resources. Does $20 Trillion in debt ring any bells?

What does our debt have to do with immigration? Absolutely nothing

That's one of the most retarded things I have ever heard of.
You think people getting free entitlements and not paying taxes doesn't effect our $$? LOL

All you can expect from bed wetting libturds is retarded bullshit.

You aren't under the impression that imbecile has the capacity for actual "THINKING" are you? Just like every other moonbat drone, he will ignore the obvious, and parrot inane libturd psycobabble.

These parasites are beneath contempt.

what about E.T.? can he fly back to earth?

I reckon so, I doubt he'd try and get on medicaid.

 

[JoeMoma]

quit shitting on the principles of this country
A principle of our country is to accept refugees from war torn countries invaded by our enemies even though we cant vet them and have NO IDEA Who they are?
LOL

we cant vet them and have NO IDEA Who they are?
I've tole ya and TOLE ya, We do vet them for two f-ing years and we know as well as anyone can who they are. No system is perfect; I'm all for improvements, too. It is the ban that won't solve anything. Do a deep dive into how to slow/stop terrorist recruitment in this country and stiffen up procedures on Visas, such as looking at their social media (ala San Bernardino). Also look at how to keep would-be terrorists from having their investigations by the FBI ended (two of our most recent terrorist attacks were investigated by the FBI and closed without enough evidence).

Actually, a two year wait doesn't not a vet make. You don't think a terrorist would be willing to just hang out and chill for two years while he waits for a free pass into the united states?

They aren't just waiting. They are being vetted. If we didn't know who they were or where they were from, they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of coming into this country. Can a terrorist "fake it?" Sure, a good one with no previous history. If all of our terrorist attacks in this country had been by refugees or recent immigrants from the M.E., especially from the countries listed in the EO, I would probably feel differently. But we are barking up the wrong tree. It is not going to accomplish anything, except to make some people who hate foreigners happy.

Really. What is being done over the two years that could not be done in 6 weeks other than the wait? What exactly makes 2 years better than 6 weeks other than the longer wait? There is nothing magic about 2 years.
Does a terrorist have to have no previous history to "fake it". Who is keeping the reliable records in these war torn countries?
And by the way, it should be obvious that Trump does not hate foreigners, just ask his wife.

 

[Pete7469]

Trump should just stop all immigration, period. We gain nothing with a constant flow of people taking our jobs and sucking up our social resources. Does $20 Trillion in debt ring any bells?

And how did YOUR FAMILY get here ??????????????????????

Probably just like everyone else.

They traveled.

Except someone eventually came with lawyers, guns, and money. They established a government and borders. When some tries to undermine those things, that's when the guns come in.