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.
- There have been discussions here about illegal immigration and I've heard many people make the claim that it's OK to break the law because it's so hard to immigrate here!
Not only that but according the politically correct it's offensive to EVEN call them illegal aliens because "no human is illegal".
- We have "sanctuary cities" where we actively protect illegal aliens from the law.
well you need to start with facts if you intend a serious discussion.
You have started with YOUR version of law, of fact of how things "might" be. We can wait and see what the COURTS think.
If you believe that POTUS can just do what he likes, check your history dude, Truman learned that he could not just do something cause he is boss man as did tricky dick. (not the break in)
The court will tell us if Trump has the power, that is the whole point of our system it is very much a nation of laws, and that is why you see IP thought up around the globe find its way to our shores to get the valuable protection of our law....
as to Berkeley well that is jus like your opinion man, accusations need to be proved, and sanctuary cities, well again tell me how a red state would react if Obama tried to force them to close all religious schools....
frankly your argument fails because it ignores LAW in your attempt to declare the USA lawless..
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,086,000 times
Reputation: 1372
OP...in Gov Brown's speech he said CA was the exception. So CA is beyond Federal law it seems. Obama was very lax with law enforcement. Illegals could run wild, people grow grass in violation of federal law. We got a new sheriff in town, give him time to get going. We will have to see ho things turn out. But I agree with you. law breakers in the US are running rampant.
First, it's NOT the same action that Obama took. Secondly, Obama didn't run around screaming and demanding a MUSLIM BAN like Trump did for the past year and a half.
Thirdly, it is TRUMP who politicized the debate over national security.
NOW - he wants to blame his total failure of a roll out on Obama.
Ain't gonna wash.
What didn't "Wash" was people trying to stop Trump from being elected. What doesn't "Wash" is the you saying Trump has failed. Here is a News Flash. He has not started yet.
well you need to start with facts if you intend a serious discussion.
frankly your argument fails because it ignores LAW in your attempt to declare the USA lawless..
Since when do Liberals deal in "Facts."
Frankly, Your argument fails because it ignores the Law. The President has Legal Authority to make that Decision. No Court in a Single State should have the Power to dictate Law to the rest of the Nation.
Trumps travel Executive Order was backed by Leading Democrats, until it came from Trump. Just proves that this is all Political and not for the People of any kind.
- Trump's so called Muslim ban, whatever you may think of it or of him, is entirely within his rights as POTUS.
I support the travel ban and the reasons behind it. I know that Trump is within his rights as POTUS to initiate the ban. Other lawmakers are within their rights to challenge it. Our court system has the responsibility to rule on the challenge. It's a good system. Inconvenient when you support what the president is doing, but it's a good system.
It's all politics and everybody knows it. But it has to play out. Be patient Grasshopper.
Frankly, Your argument fails because it ignores the Law. The President has Legal Authority to make that Decision. No Court in a Single State should have the Power to dictate Law to the rest of the Nation.
Of course they should! If the Federal District Court hears a suit filed by plaintiffs that feel the Executive Action violates the Constitution, and that court feels it has merit- the judge reacts accordingly.
The crux of this case is Kim Jong Trump rushed an ill written action into place, clouded by a bunch of verifiable statements from advisors like Giuliani that this was indeed- a legal Muslim ban... The plaintiffs were corporations and possibly individuals in those states in which the Distrct court presides.
Well bucko the president may have f*cked up with this order.
I'd imagine if Sessions HAD been on the job, the action may have been more precisely worded in order to avoid any foul ground with the Constiution. But he wasn't, and that's the Pres for ya! Remember how smart he is! How he knows more than EVERYONE?
So yeah- the court did precisely what it is designed to to do. The rest is called due process and should be presided over accordingly.
Tough nutz.
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.
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.
