Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-04-2017, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
1,187 posts, read 1,026,317 times
Reputation: 256

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
You probably will in Germany.
What about London, Paris and other cities in USA. I thought she is pro refugee immigration unlike some countries like Poland. Why change in her stance now? That is not fair for people already here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2017, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,880 posts, read 26,443,228 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
But thank God Trump has a 150 or so Justices to place in courts soon. :-)
The Judge who issued this is a solid republican appointed by Bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,068 posts, read 6,492,931 times
Reputation: 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The federal judge was ruling on a case that had nothing to do with Obama's XO, maybe you should read what your own link states. So why didn't the courts follow through on the judges decision.
Yes, that's the million dollar question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,880 posts, read 26,443,228 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
There is nothing illegal and unConstittuional about the "ban." If it was illegal and unConstitutional for Trump, then it was also for Obama. Where was this judge then, when Obama did the exact same thing?
well..except that Obama never had a "ban". He signed the appropriation bill which had inserted in it HR158 sponsored by a tea party republican which revoked the visa waiver program for four countries, it was a 'must pass bill' which means that in order to sign the appropriation bill that bill couldn't be stripped from it. But in any case, Citizens of those Countries could still travel to the US but they needed to get a visa to do so.

And the 1965 update to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, clarifies that people should not experience preferences or discrimination on account of their "race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence."
Trump's EO grants religious preference to Christians and targets seven majority-Muslim countries
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 11:02 PM
 
11,046 posts, read 5,293,783 times
Reputation: 5253
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
The Judge who issued this is a solid republican appointed by Bush.

so if the higher courts reverses the judge stay and ok Trump's order as legal under the constitution, the liberals will accept the court's ruling or hit the streets to protest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,880 posts, read 26,443,228 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
He absolutely did. In fact, the list of countries, unmentioned in Trump's ban, are the countries that Obama listed in his. You need to educate yourself. You are uninformed.
Obama never had a "list of countries" The list which was originally four countries were in a bill HR158 sponsored by a Republican, there was no 'ban' of anyone in that bill, it removed four countries from the visa waiver program. Anyone affected could still travel to the US by obtaining a Visa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,880 posts, read 26,443,228 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly View Post
Yes the power to enforce the law/constitution to the peoples that fall under the jurisdiction. Immigrants have no Rights or protection under our constitution until they gain entry into the US and even then it's limited. I fail to see how the judiciary branch has authority in this matter. The section you cited specifies what jurisdiction the Federal courts have and in no way does that section specify foreign nationals on foreign soil being protected under the law/constitution.
In 1965 Congress added the following to the Immigration and Nationality Act "no person could be 'discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence'."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,880 posts, read 26,443,228 times
Reputation: 34087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
so if the higher courts reverses the judge stay and ok Trump's order as legal under the constitution, the liberals will accept the court's ruling or hit the streets to protest?
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't represent all liberals so it would be difficult for me to answer that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2017, 11:31 PM
 
3,992 posts, read 2,468,409 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
The Judge who issued this is a solid republican appointed by Bush.
Shhhh...don't let this fact get in the way...it's the libta$ds fault because WINNING....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2017, 01:54 AM
 
34,289 posts, read 19,433,931 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
so if the higher courts reverses the judge stay and ok Trump's order as legal under the constitution, the liberals will accept the court's ruling or hit the streets to protest?
Can't speak to others, but I would be fine with it. I just find it unlikely. If it does I expect it will be more limited in scope then the original one.

I know that reading this it seems like a lot of folks on the right arent a fan of our form of government, and seem to want something that makes our president have unlimited powers though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top