Trump travel ban blocked again!!! (Iran, votes, tax, war)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he is trying to keep us safe, what part of this isnt anyone getting??????
Well, you know the liberals ..."we just need to love everybody ...then they will stop attacking us." Too bad that didn't work. Obama's "Muslim outreach" for the last eight years has done absolutely nothing to stop terrorism, because that isn't the reason they do it, and Leftists refuse to believe what the Islamists tell us is the reason. World domination is the reason ...to bring the entire world under Sharia Law.
We are going around in circles, no president has unlimited powers. Obama was sued in court over immigration policies and also lost, yes the president has broad powers regarding immigration policy but no power is without limits.
Trump and his staff made statements regarding his anti-immigrant sentiment leading up to the election and he even put a Christian Preference clause in his first order. So what is the purpose of a temporary ban at this point, why not just put his new vetting in place.
The United States has always favored Christians in immigration policy. That is nothing new. And there is nothing wrong with that. Christianity is superior to Islam, which isn't even really a religion. It is a Religio/political system (as some have described it) and is more like a cult. In fact, I believe it is a cult.
There is no U.S. law that says the President cannot favor one group or class over another in immigration policy. If you think there is, tell me where.
It used to be that immigration policy was determined by the benefit to the United States that would result.
Finally, whatever was said by anyone leading up to the election should have no bearing on this whatsoever. The election is over, and his E.O. is lawful. That's all that matters.
His power in any area is not unlimited, he can't indiscriminately ban anyone he wants
Yes, he can. Both under the Constitution and in terms of statute.
Quote:
there needs to be some rational reasoning behind any actions.
There is plenty of rational reasoning behind banning Muslims that we can't properly vet because they are coming from countries that have Muslim terrorist activity AND are failed states, involved in civil wars, or that openly hate the United States.
Obama administration officials themselves said so -- the directors of the FBI, CIA and National Intelligence -- Comey, Brennan and Clapper.
You've just shown that you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
First off there is no rational reason behind these actions, those countries are only remotely responsible for any terror attacks in the past 15 years.
Wrong.
As recently as last Thanksgiving, a Somali refugee attacked Americans in Ohio with his car, and then with a knife.
Quote:
Secondly I don't view an outright ban on immigration as a foreign policy. The generals and the state department have gone on record that this makes us less safe not more.
No, they haven't.
Quote:
Our vetting procedures have worked fine for decades
No, they haven't.
Tashfeen Malik, the Tsarnaev brothers, and the 9/11 terrorists are proof enough of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The Law states that the President may ban or limit immigration of any class or group of immigrants if he deems such immigration is not in the best interest of the United States. That's pretty broad. That gives him a lot of latitude.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler
he is trying to keep us safe, what part of this isnt anyone getting??????
Although few of them would ever admit it, the anti-Trump libs and leftists hate America and want Third World terrorists to come here and kill Americans because "we have done bad things."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
I know more about the Constitution and the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments than you do. The government can't ban people because of their religion.
Yes, it can.
It can ban any foreigner who is not already in this country for any reason or no reason other than that "it's not in the best interest of the United States" to admit him according to the president.
You have just shown that you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
The highest volume of terrorist attacks I've seen in the last year in the US have been White Nationalist terrorist attacks.
What attacks?
Please tell us.
How many people died?
Where and when did these attacks occur?
Last edited by dechatelet; 03-18-2017 at 04:15 AM..
The judges from what I have read blocked his XO based on both his prior statements and the harm done to institutions. Aside from the constitutional issues why doesn't he just put forth his changes and if he is so sure that this is a violation of the constitution why didn't he appeal either this XO or his first. The answer is that this is the last thing he wants. They would have full disclosure of how he came to this conclusion that we needed an emergency ban and it would not be pretty.
LOL!
According to the relevant law, which you apparently have not read, the President needs only to determine if such immigration is "not in the best interest of the United States." And on that basis, Ann Coulter nails it:
The government isn't required to do that for an EO. Ever. The only litmus test is whether it is constitutional. And it is.
As for Saudi Arabia... they are supporting the travel ban. And their internal vetting for terrorists is far better than it is in the countries listed in the EO with the possible exception of Iraq. But Iraq remains on the list, with some exceptions, because ISIS has a foothold there.
You are not a constitutional lawyer--
You are just a Trump supporter
According to the relevant law, which you apparently have not read, the President needs only to determine if such immigration is "not in the best interest of the United States." And on that basis, Ann Coulter nails it:
I would just like to point out that President Roosevelt established internment camps for the Japanese Americans during WWII because of their "threat" to the United States...
They were forcibly removed from their homes, their businesses, their lives which had gone on for decades in the US with NO THREAT whatsoever to the US...
That executive order was proved to be unconstitutional--
Just because a President does something and SAYS it is Consitutional does not mean that it is.
Many parts of the Constitutions itself have been struck down and changed by amendments
Right now there is a hateful strain in the US of xenophobia--especially anti-Islam/Muslim xenophobia... Alt-right politics has surged before Trump's election but certainly after it as a "sign" that racist thinking and actions are what most Americans want--
That is just wrong...but those people feel empowered because Trump himself and his surrogates are really doing nothing to speak out against that attitude--
Trump is a racist
Racism isn't condoned by the Constitution and I am hoping this EO will be shot down by the Supreme Court...but it might not be--
Not because it is legal but because the Supreme Court has become as representative of the polarizing views of America as other aspects of the country...
Last edited by loves2read; 03-18-2017 at 07:16 AM..
I would just like to point out that President Roosevelt established internment camps for the Japanese Americans during WWII because of their "threat" to the United States...
They were forcibly removed from their homes, their businesses, their lives which had gone on for decades in the US with NO THREAT whatsoever to the US...
That executive order was proved to be unconstitutional--
What does that have to do with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Just because a President does something and SAYS it is Consitutional does not mean that it is.
Well, the relevant Law here is pretty clear, the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" Section 212 F, codified under USC Title 8 1182 gives the President of the United States the authority to limit or ban immigration from any class or group if he deems such immigration is not in the best interest of the United States, and such immigration may be limited or banned for whatever length of time he deems appropriate.
Look it up. And, and this law has already passed Constitutional muster.
The power to set Foreign Policy is vested in the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Many parts of the Constitutions itself have been struck down and changed by amendments
But this has not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Right now there is a hateful strain in the US of xenophobia--especially anti-Islam/Muslim xenophobia...
Oh, please!
Tell me, what is the benefit to the United States of allowing immigration of persons with no skills, whom we must support with welfare meant for U.S. citizens, and of persons who may intend to do us harm, as many have (the Boston Bombers come to mind)?
Does it not make sense to prevent or at least temporarily ban immigration from countries known to be hotbeds of terrorist groups until we can find a better way to ensure that we are not importing terrorists into the United States? If not, would you like them to be resettled in your town?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Alt-right politics has surged before Trump's election but certainly after it as a "sign" that racist thinking and actions are what most Americans want--
Would you care to describe what those "alt-right" politics are? Or is that just rhetoric being tossed out for effect? Exactly what "alt-right" politics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
That is just wrong...but those people feel empowered because Trump himself and his surrogates are really doing nothing to speak out against that attitude--
Trump is a racist
Can you prove that Trump is a racist? Name calling does not make it fact. Show us the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Racism isn't condoned by the Constitution and I am hoping this EO will be shot down by the Supreme Court...but it might not be--
The E.O. in question has noting to do with race or religion. Can you tell me where in the Order there is any mention of either?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read
Not because it is legal but because the Supreme Court has become as representative of the polarizing views of America as other aspects of the country...
If the Supreme Court examines this E.O. in light of the Constitution and the relevant Law as it should, the E.O. will be upheld, because the Law is clear, and it is clearly on the President's side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.