White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[Boss]

Oh, WELL, if a bunch of lawyers who make their living getting people into the country say that Trump is wrong, that settles it. Surely, THEY couldn't have any sort of bias.

I see you have no facts to rebut those Lawyers...how surprising...
Btw, they cites a little thing called the U.S. Constitution, maybe trump and you ought to check it out before the both of you continue to make fools of yourself...

Marky, you're the one who hasn't refuted facts. You keep basing your argument on emotional political opinions which have no legal standing. Trump was right and you're eventually going to lose this silly political dogfight, and that's unfortunate for you guys, you just continue to lose. It's almost sad to watch it happen, thinking you've all invested your hopes and emotions in this and your vision is about to be crushed again. Yet, you all seem to get some sort of rise out of being able to strut around and crow because some obscure left-wing judge perverted the Constitution to make a political statement. So you get a few days of being able to run around waving the Constitution like you're all James Fucking Madison... only to end up losing yet another battle.

In a really sadistic sense, it's kind of funny. I love how you've all set yourselves up for embarrassing disappointment when this doesn't turn out your way. I guess you'll go out there and burn or break things again, that's usually how you respond when defeated. Once again, you will have demonstrated to mainstream Americans that you are too incompetent to govern.

Marky, you're the one who hasn't refuted facts
You keep basing your argument on emotional political opinions which have no legal standing.

Well boss of no one, seems you are either a very stupid reader or a partisan bitch...
The sections of the Constitution that trump and his ball lickers (you included) would like to be ignored was plainly posted by myself numerous times.
It's pathetic that you stooges are so busy inhaling trumps dirty drawers that you would excuse his entanglements with Putin, refusing to admit that Russia influenced the election in his favor, gutting institutions that protect the environment and the safety of this country, benching military Generals from National security and installing a white supremacist.
Among the other betrayals of the welfare of the Country, this bumpkin now sends out an ill conceived, ill planned, non-vetted and illegal and unconstitutional religious ban.
It's no wonder people like you look down on Liberals, progressives and the major urban area of this Nation, unlike you, we have an education plus brains and aren't committed to ignoring reality...

Alas, we get to the bottom of what your REAL problem is and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is a continuum of the temper tantrum. I already knew that's what this was but it's nice of you to reveal it. Liberals are only ever interested in the Constitution when they can exploit it to their advantage, otherwise, it's just an archaic old document written by a bunch of racist slave owners.

 

[theHawk]

This "so-called judge" does immigration work on the side for refugees. Now we know why he stopped the ban of refugees coming into this country. Follow the money.

That was before he became a federal judge and it was pro bono. And there is no money to follow you lying sack of dog dirt.

He also served families with special needs children.

That may bother Trumpees since Trump Mocks the disabled even for the camers.

trump dissaproval at 53 after two weeks and climbing. Approval at 42. The 39s are coming soon.

No money my ass. I bet he was selling the kids to a pedo ring.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..

Wrong. It's a ban of ALL citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.

Wrong...Christians were given special preference...

You said, it's a ban ONLY on Muslims, which is not true. The ban is for ALL CITIZENS of the seven countries.

 

[reconmark]

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..

Wrong. It's a ban of ALL citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.

Wrong...Christians were given special preference...

You said, it's a ban ONLY on Muslims, which is not true. The ban is for ALL CITIZENS of the seven countries.

It's not a ban on all citizens when you give preference to Christians...the only affected people from those seven countries are Muslims...

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."

Speaking with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said that it had been "impossible, or at least very tough" for Syrian Christians to enter the United States.
"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."

 

[reconmark]

Oh, WELL, if a bunch of lawyers who make their living getting people into the country say that Trump is wrong, that settles it. Surely, THEY couldn't have any sort of bias.

I see you have no facts to rebut those Lawyers...how surprising...
Btw, they cites a little thing called the U.S. Constitution, maybe trump and you ought to check it out before the both of you continue to make fools of yourself...

Marky, you're the one who hasn't refuted facts. You keep basing your argument on emotional political opinions which have no legal standing. Trump was right and you're eventually going to lose this silly political dogfight, and that's unfortunate for you guys, you just continue to lose. It's almost sad to watch it happen, thinking you've all invested your hopes and emotions in this and your vision is about to be crushed again. Yet, you all seem to get some sort of rise out of being able to strut around and crow because some obscure left-wing judge perverted the Constitution to make a political statement. So you get a few days of being able to run around waving the Constitution like you're all James Fucking Madison... only to end up losing yet another battle.

In a really sadistic sense, it's kind of funny. I love how you've all set yourselves up for embarrassing disappointment when this doesn't turn out your way. I guess you'll go out there and burn or break things again, that's usually how you respond when defeated. Once again, you will have demonstrated to mainstream Americans that you are too incompetent to govern.

Marky, you're the one who hasn't refuted facts
You keep basing your argument on emotional political opinions which have no legal standing.

Well boss of no one, seems you are either a very stupid reader or a partisan bitch...
The sections of the Constitution that trump and his ball lickers (you included) would like to be ignored was plainly posted by myself numerous times.
It's pathetic that you stooges are so busy inhaling trumps dirty drawers that you would excuse his entanglements with Putin, refusing to admit that Russia influenced the election in his favor, gutting institutions that protect the environment and the safety of this country, benching military Generals from National security and installing a white supremacist.
Among the other betrayals of the welfare of the Country, this bumpkin now sends out an ill conceived, ill planned, non-vetted and illegal and unconstitutional religious ban.
It's no wonder people like you look down on Liberals, progressives and the major urban area of this Nation, unlike you, we have an education plus brains and aren't committed to ignoring reality...

Alas, we get to the bottom of what your REAL problem is and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is a continuum of the temper tantrum. I already knew that's what this was but it's nice of you to reveal it. Liberals are only ever interested in the Constitution when they can exploit it to their advantage, otherwise, it's just an archaic old document written by a bunch of racist slave owners.

So as usual when you lose the factual argument you must deflect to the usual talking points of failed debaters...
As I previously stated, I plainly listed the Constitutional Amendments that this "muslim ban" violated.
Not to worry, I already know you can't refute the facts I listed.
Conservatives such as trump and yourself are still too stupid to realize that the Constitution wasn't created to extend the reach of your ignorance and racism...

 

[Athanasius68]

O

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..

Wrong. It's a ban of ALL citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.

Wrong...Christians were given special preference...

You said, it's a ban ONLY on Muslims, which is not true. The ban is for ALL CITIZENS of the seven countries.

It's not a ban on all citizens when you give preference to Christians...the only affected people from those seven countries are Muslims...

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."

Speaking with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said that it had been "impossible, or at least very tough" for Syrian Christians to enter the United States.
"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."

Nothing wrong, or unconstitutional, with granting refugee status based upon religious persecution.

 

[Boss]

So as usual when you lose the factual argument you must deflect to the usual talking points of failed debaters...
As I previously stated, I plainly listed the Constitutional Amendments that this "muslim ban" violated.
Not to worry, I already know you can't refute the facts I listed.
Conservatives such as trump and yourself are still too stupid to realize that the Constitution wasn't created to extend the reach of your ignorance and racism...

You don't have a factual argument, you're a retard arguing retarded nonsense with drool running down your retarded chin. Constitutional Amendments and the Constitution do not apply to non-American, non-foreign nationals who are not on American soil. If these people are supposed to be getting Constitutional rights we've got a huge problem because mostly they live in countries that adhere to Sharia law and their "Constitutional rights" are being violated daily by their own governments. How do you even rationalize such a retarded argument?

Do you believe judges have the power to declare war? What if a judge steps up tomorrow and says... Saudi Arabians deserve Constitutional rights and therefore, we must go to war and overthrow their government in order to establish their constitutional rights... you okay with that?

Because, arguably, that IS your argument here. Look... I've posted it about a dozen times here... the US statutory law which gives the president plenary power... read it here:
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.​

Now, you can just keep on ignorantly ignoring this like a retard.... drool running down your chin... but Congress deliberated and legislated this law into existence pursuant to their powers as the legislative branch. The president signed it into law and it has been used by numerous previous presidents. It doesn't give the judiciary any oversight. So what powers are you granting to the judiciary to overturn the other two branches of government?

Why don't you try to explain that to me instead of trying to make the retarded claim that our Constitution applies to people it was never intended to apply to?

And while you're drooling and explaining... how 'bout trying to explain how Obama can legislate through Executive Order, DOPA and DOCA... totally without regard for separation of powers... no congressional action or oversight... the Federal court rules he cannot do it... BUT.., they do it anyway and just ignore the court ruling?

 

[Dragonlady]

Until the stay is granted, the Trump admin needs to obey the court order.

No, they don't need to obey the court order... it's unconstitutional.

It's no different than if the court issued a ruling saying you can't post on a message board!

The US is still a nation which abides by orders issued by Federal Courts. That's how the Constitution functions. It is Unconstitutional for the Executive Office to overrule the Court.

The day that the Executive Branch refuses to obey a Court Order, is the day the USA becomes a dictatorship.

 

[Boss]

The US is still a nation which abides by orders issued by Federal Courts.*
That's how the Constitution functions.*
It is Unconstitutional for the Executive Office to overrule the Court.*
The day that the Executive Branch refuses to obey a Court Order, is the day the USA becomes a dictatorship.*

*Except when Liberals occupy the Executive branch.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Boss]

The US is still a nation which abides by orders issued by Federal Courts. That's how the Constitution functions. It is Unconstitutional for the Executive Office to overrule the Court.

The day that the Executive Branch refuses to obey a Court Order, is the day the USA becomes a dictatorship.

No, judges do not get to overrule the laws legislated by congress because they don't like the law. That's a dictatorship. We have three coequal branches of government. The judiciary is one of the three, they are not superior in authority.

If a plaintiff brings a case before a court questioning the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress, the court can make a ruling the law is unconstitutional. That's not the case here. First of all, there is nothing unconstitutional in congress granting the president plenary power to deal with issues of national security. That has been tested and the courts have already ruled on it. So there is no question about this, the judge in this case has clearly overstepped his bounds.

 

[EverCurious]

Ya'll are soooo clueless... It's just sad. You don't even /know/ how badly your media lies to you. WAKE UP!


First from the EO:

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States. - EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

---

Here's a bill from a democrat, California, back in March 2015, wanting to give a higher priority for those being religiously persecuted (aka priority 2, 3 is those with families, 1 is individuals who's lives are in imminent danger). Introduced by Representative Vargas (D-CA), this bill would make the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) more accessible to individuals in or from Iraq and Syria, including individuals facing persecution by ISIS based on gender, religion or ethnicity, by allowing them direct access to the refugee admissions process. In fact, the fucking bill itself is named "Protecting Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act of 2015" :

"SEC. 3. United States refugee program processing priorities.

(a) In general.—Refugees of special humanitarian concern eligible for Priority 2 processing under the refugee resettlement priority system who may apply directly to the United States Refugee Admissions Program shall include aliens who are or were nationals or residents of Iraq or Syria who have been persecuted or have a credible fear of being persecuted by the group commonly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or any successor name), or by a similar group, based on—

(1) the alien’s membership in a minority group, including a religious or ethnic minority group;

(2) the alien’s gender; or

(3) other characteristics identified by the Secretary of State, or the designee of the Secretary. "

- Text - H.R.1568 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Protecting Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act of 2015

 

[danielpalos]

DigitalDrifter, post: 16496506

Dimocrats do not care what our country turns into. They can't wait until the population of Muslims reaches a substantial percentage.

So there is the unconstitutional bigoted discrimination that true freedom loving Aneticans abhor.

You are a perfect example of why Trumpty Dumpty's EA was restrained.

Your concern is not about danger. It is about safe and legal population growth where Chrustisnity is in decline.

You want the Federal Government to protect one specific religion. The majority religion since the founding.

Can't do that, bigot.

In order to save the west, we must limit the growth of Islam.
If we fail, all is lost. If you cannot see that, you are the problem. Bigot.

just national socialist right wing fantasy? we have a First Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

And now we have conservative idiots on this board saying that trump should ignore the Lawful Order of a Federal Judge...
Does it get anymore ludicrous???

just a bunch of, "illegal wannabes".

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If it's a Muslim ban, why does the ban only involve seven nations?

Because it's a band on only Muslims from those seven areas..

Wrong. It's a ban of ALL citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering the U.S. on any visa category.

Wrong...Christians were given special preference...

You said, it's a ban ONLY on Muslims, which is not true. The ban is for ALL CITIZENS of the seven countries.

It's not a ban on all citizens when you give preference to Christians...the only affected people from those seven countries are Muslims...

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."

Speaking with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said that it had been "impossible, or at least very tough" for Syrian Christians to enter the United States.
"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DigitalDrifter, post: 16521715

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

It matters what Trump and Giulliani said about banning Muslims. I just finished listening to the 9th circuit of Apeals. Their statements were brought up several times by the judges and it is not looking good for Der Drumphf


The ban gives preference to minority religions in all seven countries. All the countries are majority Muslim. That is not regardless of religion it is favoring non-Muslims. Hence a Muslim ban.

 

[Boss]

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

And it's not really a ban. It's a temporary hold, really just an extension of an automatic hold on ALL visas from abroad. But let's not let facts interfere with feelings.

 

[Athanasius68]

DigitalDrifter, post: 16521715

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

It matters what Trump and Giulliani said about banning Muslims. I just finished listening to the 9th circuit of Apeals. Their statements were brought up several times by the judges and it is not looking good for Der Drumphf


The ban gives preference to minority religions in all seven countries. All the countries are majority Muslim. That is not regardless of religion it is favoring non-Muslims. Hence a Muslim ban.

Yes--it does give preference to religious minorities in those seven countries. Because they are being persecuted for religious reasons in those seven countries. Religious persecution is in fact grounds for claiming refugee status. Why do you have an issue with that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DigitalDrifter, post: 16521715

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

Boss, post: 16522980

And it's not really a ban. It's a temporary hold, really just an extension of an automatic hold on ALL visas from abroad. But let's not let facts interfere with feelings.

Washington vs Trumpty Dumpty.

Whatever you want to call it, regardless of being temporary, it would set a precedent for discriminating against Muslims. Because it says minority religions will be given preference on reviewing visas.

Now listening to the proceedings, the one judge being sympathetic sounding to Trump's side until Trump's lawyer tried to snarkily brush off Guilliani and Trump's comments as evidence desiring 'a Muslim ban without looking like a Muslim ban' as mere things we hear in the newspapers. The judge went off on Trump's lawyer in half a heartbeat. The judge asks do you believe those comment were in fact made? Trumplaw tried to evade. Asked more strongly, Trumplaw admits yes they are true.

The judge ripped him a new asshole for trying to bury truth as heresy when he knew god damned well that Trump and Rudy said what they said.

It was a classic knockdown of a right winger evading facts like all right wingers are forced to do.

Classic.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you disputing Drifter and Biss, you need to get your stories straight.

Athanasius68, post: 16523035

Yes--it does give preference to religious minorities in those seven countries. Because they are being persecuted for religious reasons in those seven countries. Religious persecution is in fact grounds for claiming refugee status. Why do you have an issue with that?

It can't give preference to any religion. It could give preference to those being persecuted Muslim or Christian or whatever. trump's EO didn't say that because it would equally and fairly let Muslims in by order of application.

Trump wanted a Muslim ban not written as a Muslim ban but he failed. Because he is an idiot trying to use code words for anti/Muslum bigot base.

 

[Athanasius68]

DigitalDrifter, post: 16521715

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

Boss, post: 16522980

And it's not really a ban. It's a temporary hold, really just an extension of an automatic hold on ALL visas from abroad. But let's not let facts interfere with feelings.

Washington vs Trumpty Dumpty.

Whatever you want to call it, regardless of being temporary, it would set a precedent for dis

DigitalDrifter, post: 16521715

It doesn't matter what he has SAID. The facts of the matter is that the ban as written includes all citizens regardless of religion.

Boss, post: 16522980

And it's not really a ban. It's a temporary hold, really just an extension of an automatic hold on ALL visas from abroad. But let's not let facts interfere with feelings.

Washington vs Trumpty Dumpty.

Whatever you want to call it, regardless of being temporary, it would set a precedent for discriminating against Muslims. Because it says minority religions will be given preference on reviewing visas..

I think you are confusing the two issues here. The 90 day travel ban are about visas- somebody coming fron Iraq for school, or to visit Uncle Ned. That is for everyone in those 7 countries.
The part about refugees is where one hits the religious minority issue. And precisely because people are fleeing religious persecution. Which has long been a valid justification refugee status. Its two different issues. The Iranian Christian wanting to come over for a weeks vacation faces the same problem as his Muslim neighbor.
The Christian Syrian refugee fleeing might stand a better chance than his Muslim neighbor by claiming religious persecution.