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.
Agents have not concluded that any of the refugees should have been rejected for entry, but the apparent glitch — which was discovered in late 2015 and corrected last year.
Of course they haven't concluded that yet. It's been less than a month since they found they had to re-vet them. You all claim the vetting process takes 2-3 years.
what trump did with his ban was completely unrelated to our safety it was a big pile of poop designed to sow fear and help Trump establish himself as the boss.
He screwed up and showed himself and his team as a bunch of empty suit losers who could not write their way out of grade school.
He could have quietly worked on new vetting standards and just slipped them in with no hassle at all.
But he wanted to act like a big deal and instead ended up looking like a fool.
Shame on Trump Shame on Bannon. And shame on the GOP for not standing up to Trump you are all cowards. Cowards to a man.
Well done
Trump is on tv calling it a "political decision " he just saw it on TV like us and he is huffing and puffing like a fool.
what trump did with his ban was completely unrelated to our safety it was a big pile of poop designed to sow fear and help Trump establish himself as the boss.
He screwed up and showed himself and his team as a bunch of empty suit losers who could not write their way out of grade school.
He could have quietly worked on new vetting standards and just slipped them in with no hassle at all.
But he wanted to act like a big deal and instead ended up looking like a fool.
Shame on Trump Shame on Bannon. And shame on the GOP for not standing up to Trump you are all cowards. Cowards to a man.
Well done
Trump is on tv calling it a "political decision " he just saw it on TV like us and he is huffing and puffing like a fool.
The law is very clear. So clear, a High School Freshman can understand it.
This judge made his decision not based upon the wording, the text, the language. He made his ruling based upon what Donald Trump, on the campaign saying, we needed to ban all Muslims from other nations wanting to harm us. He said it was Trumps "Intent" This was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th, based upon Trumps intent on the campaign trail. Not the text of the actual EO that was drafted.
Anytime "intent" is used instead of the text. It is a purely political ruling and not based upon the text of the constitution.
Stupid is not unconstitutional.
53% of Citizens of the USA agree with the ban, according to Politico(leans left)
75%-80% agree in the same polls that picked Trump to win the election.
Congress has the right to declare war NOT the President. However, the president (Commander and Chief) has the ability to dispatch troops into combat with defined limitations according to the 1973 War Powers Act. As long as the President doesn't violate these laws, the Judicial shouldn't have any reason to get involved. If the president does violate the laws, then the Judicial branch absolutely should get involved.... we all absolutely want the courts "sticking their noses into the Executive Branch's business". Its a form of check and balance... absolutely a good thing.
The decision to declare war and and accept causalities of our Service Men/Women as a reasonable cost should reside with the body that represents the people.. not a single individual.
Lower court challenged the EO of a President as unconstitutional. That is a GOOD thing... whether or not you agree with the specific EO. The other good thing about the system is that it doesn't have to stop there. The President can challenge it in higher courts... once again... a good thing (get more officials involved in the decision process). The option for a higher court to overturn the decision of a lower court is also a good thing.
One of the greatest things about the US government is the system of checks and balances... that the power doesn't reside in a single individual or small group.
The only reason why you post such things is because you don't agree with the court decision and don't quite understand the process. Rather than debating the issue you would rather just dismantle the system of check and balance; that's precisely how dictatorships are formed.
If you support Trump's immigration ban, I encourage you to contact your representative to demand that Trump stops wasting time trying to fight this in the court system. Trump should look at the details of what exactly the courts objected to and try to "make a deal" via compromise. He should rewrite/re-frame the EO in order to satisfy the constitution. I have no doubt that the immigration ban would have stood if and only if it were pursued properly... his actions are that of a novice politician who doesn't quite understand how laws and government operate. He is trying to run the government like a privately owned business which closely mimics a dictatorship.... the owner can do whatever he wants in regards to the owned business. Trump only has himself to blame... no one else.. esp not the court system.
Of course, we run into another issue. Making a compromise would be admitting a mistake... and Trump's ego wouldn't stand for it.
Just think about it? If the power to declare war resides only with the President, Trump would have the power to declare war against any country that threatens Trump's businesses. Would you want your family sacrificing their lives in conflict over the business interests of Trump Organization Inc? I certainly don't.
Did I say declare war? I said wage war. Big difference.
BTW, I would be ok with a Constitutional Amendment requiring a formal declaration of war before troops can be deployed except in case of national emergency.
The law is very clear. So clear, a High School Freshman can understand it.
This judge made his decision not based upon the wording, the text, the language. He made his ruling based upon what Donald Trump, on the campaign saying, we needed to ban all Muslims from other nations wanting to harm us. He said it was Trumps "Intent" This was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th, based upon Trumps intent on the campaign trail. Not the text of the actual EO that was drafted.
Anytime "intent" is used instead of the text. It is a purely political ruling and not based upon the text of the constitution.
Stupid is not unconstitutional.
53% of Citizens of the USA agree with the ban, according to Politico(leans left)
75%-80% agree in the same polls that picked Trump to win the election.
Not exactly...he was unable to demonstrate that those 7 Countries had presented 'immediate security concerns'. There is also the little 'problem' of not allowing people with permanent US residency to enter the Country
This just means the stay stands. It doesn't mean the law won't happen. It will have it's day in court.
If Trump doesn't learn his lesson about going through proper channels and making sure his stuff is tight before he releases it, we are in for 4 long years of the same.
He absolutely has the authority to make changes to the immigrant vetting progress, but he can't do it like this. He left himself open to challenges and now people are taking advantage of the opportunity, creating havoc.
reading baby trump's tweets are, how could i say it, sad. lmao.
It's spelled SAD.
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.
