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.
It's always a bad idea to make laws retroactive. The ban should have applied to future visas. Let those who are already in the pipeline come. It would have taken a week or so to clear out the system. Even if ban is lifted, there is no way anybody can force the president to issue new visas.
I'm strongly opposed to the ban, but I would have found it acceptable had it been done this way. (And if Trump hadn't been calling for a Muslim registry during his campaign - which obviously causes people to question whether this is the first step in something more nefarious.)
The US functions as well as it does because its policies are generally consistently applied, making for a predictable and stable system. There is a solid process for everything and, for the most part, people follow that process. If someone has a government document that enables them to do something (be it a driver's license or a visa), they can be reasonably certain that the government will not stop allowing them to do that thing without cause or fair warning.
We have to root out the bad judges first; they have infested our country and will fight Trump at every turn. Replace them with ones who follow the constitution and have long-term goals for our country to stay secure in the future.
Who would those be? The ones who don't tow the party line?
Trump hard liners are not really interested in "saving this country". The actual goal of course is to transform the USA into a oligarchy led by Donald Trump and his court jesters. One of the fallacies that they are using to push this agenda is the idea that we are "unsafe" and that there are enemies around every corner that must be controlled; be they Liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, Catholics, Democrats or Republicans. We've heard that twaddle in different forms for decades, so it is nothing new - it's just that we now have a President who is trying to peddle this snake oil to us from the bully pulpit.
I think Trump is a little taken aback that the 75% of the voting public that did not vote for him are pushing back - and hard. He is used to having a room full of bedazzled cultists fawning on every lie and exaggeration that flows from his mouth. He is most assuredly taken aback that he has to work within the confines of a system that has checks and balances and law that may get in his way of the establishment of the Oligarchy. He is pushing back hardest at the media, because a free press with their ability to expose his true intentions pose the greatest risk to his agenda.
Not sure where it will go from here, but one thing is crystal clear. We have a choice; let Trump play us like a fiddle by manipulating our fears and give him full rein to establish his pseudo-fascist state; or work to oppose him at every turn, through our Legislative and Judicial systems.
This pretty much nails it. The Courts BETTER stand strong as The Donald is just dying to declare martial law and shelve the Constitution for another day. All for our own good, of course.
Thankfully there are a LOT of Patriots who are pushing back...and pushing back hard. It's no cake walk for the Donald, in spite of his insistence that things are going "really, really well" (as if he was fighting some sort of battle against the American people). When judgment day arrives, and it looks to be barreling at us at quite a quick pace, where will the Cabinet and the military side? For the sake of the Nation, pray sane minds prevail.
Nonetheless, there was a ruling and he chose to ignore the outcome. Let's not mince words.
No let's because there's a fundamental difference here. One that people should understand. For every ruling on point factual circumstances present other rulings to the contrary. It's not ignoring an order to challenge one ruling on the basis of others. That's one of the fundamental pieces of our judiciary.
As clear as the law is, the actions of this Judge scream, "Domestic Enemy." Abetting the invasion of this nation, unlawfully and dangerously to our sovereignty.
I'm strongly opposed to the ban, but I would have found it acceptable had it been done this way. (And if Trump hadn't been calling for a Muslim registry during his campaign - which obviously causes people to question whether this is the first step in something more nefarious.)
The US functions as well as it does because its policies are generally consistently applied, making for a predictable and stable system. There is a solid process for everything and, for the most part, people follow that process. If someone has a government document that enables them to do something (be it a driver's license or a visa), they can be reasonably certain that the government will not stop allowing them to do that thing without cause or fair warning.
You do realize that immigration officers can revoke a visa at any time, up and including the moment of entry. This has been the case forever. So "fair warning" is not required. Problem is most people are under the impression that the entry into the US is subject to some form of hearing. At no time is the consular office under any obligation to explain to someone why he is denied entry.
You do realize that immigration officers can revoke a visa at any time, up and including the moment of entry. This has been the case forever. So "fair warning" is not required. Problem is most people are under the impression that the entry into the US is subject to some form of hearing. At no time is the consular office under any obligation to explain to someone why he is denied entry.
Yes, I am aware. However, the vast, vast majority of the time when someone has a visa into our country, they are allowed entry. That is why the system works. If that were not the case, people would be crazy to waste their money on the plane ticket to come here.
No let's because there's a fundamental difference here. One that people should understand. For every ruling on point factual circumstances present other rulings to the contrary. It's not ignoring an order to challenge one ruling on the basis of others. That's one of the fundamental pieces of our judiciary.
This still does not change the fact that he ignored the outcome. He subsequently chose to challenge it.
This still does not change the fact that he ignored the outcome. He subsequently chose to challenge it.
By your logic he'd be ignoring it not challenging it because he ignored contrary decisions.
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.
