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.
Obsfuscation. This is now about what is and isn't constitutional. That is the point. Dems caused a delay in implementation, thus denying the president's point of emergency. Does not change his original point in both travel bans. Dems have a pretty lousy track record when it comes right down to constitutional point. But, delay and dragging things through the court system can be seen as successful politics.
If you are choking, your friend says she's dying and I prevent you from going to the emergency room, just because I don't like your politics; sure I have delayed a life saving trip. I did not change the original emergency. I might have caused your death though.
Like I said, back asswords.
You still didn't answer the question, what specific threat required a ban. Why is this an emergency, simply because Trump says we are in danger. This will drag on for months and then the ban will be gone, he doesn't want this to go the Supreme Court, he had his chance and backed down. So tell me where are the new vetting procedures he promised.
Liberals and leftists like to think that the courts are the "last word" on everything.
No, they are not.
They have no army, no treasury, no police force.
They cannot enforce their decisions against the other branches of the federal government.
They are only effective to the extent that their decisions are acceptable in terms of A) common sense, B) national security, and C) acceptance by the one branch of government that does have real power -- namely the President, who is in charge of the military and the Justice Department.
Trump could simply ignore the courts and ban all Muslims from this country.
I think he should do just that.
The only recourse against him would be impeachment -- which wouldn't happen.
Trump has the absolute right under the Constitution and statutory law to ban anyone and any group from entering this country for any reason he sees fit.
Foreigners not in this country have no rights under our Constitution, period.
Trump is putting America first -- and the people who object to that are nothing other than traitors.
Are you away even Trump's DHS said that terrorists are radicalized after already living in the country, and not from coming over here? This ban doesn't nothing to protect us. The countries with the bulk of the terrorists aren't even on the list, because Trump does business with them.
Trump supporters have caused far more damage to this country in the past few months, than refugees/immigrants have in 16 years.
You just lost whatever credibility you might have had (which wasn't much) with this absurdity. Could you please elaborate on that? Describe the "damage" Trump supporters have done to the country.
As for terrorists being "radicalized" after they have entered the united states (an oxymoron), how is that possible? Who is radicalizing them ...the Mosques? It would seem that would be a good reason to keep all Muslims out of the country and shut down the Mosques! However, I reject that argument, at least to some degree, because it has been disclosed that there are many Mosques in the USA that preach the radical form of Islam that includes Islamic jihad and hatred for America.
And once again you are parroting the mantra that "countries that are excluded are because Trump does business with them." You have proof of this, of course? Present your proof. The list of countries included in this temporary pause were included by Obama. Was Obama protecting Trump's business interests? Such assertions are childish and show a lack of rational thought. It's easy to make wild accusations. It requires much more brain power to think rationally and make an intelligent response.
Are you ready to accept several hundred Syrian or Somali refugees, whom you know nothing about and whom have not been vetted, into your community? If not, case closed.
Liberals and leftists like to think that the courts are the "last word" on everything.
No, they are not.
They have no army, no treasury, no police force.
They cannot enforce their decisions against the other branches of the federal government.
They are only effective to the extent that their decisions are acceptable in terms of A) common sense, B) national security, and C) acceptance by the one branch of government that does have real power -- namely the President, who is in charge of the military and the Justice Department.
Trump could simply ignore the courts and ban all Muslims from this country.
I think he should do just that.
The only recourse against him would be impeachment -- which wouldn't happen.
Trump has the absolute right under the Constitution and statutory law to ban anyone and any group from entering this country for any reason he sees fit.
Foreigners not in this country have no rights under our Constitution, period.
Trump is putting America first -- and the people who object to that are nothing other than traitors.
His power in any area is not unlimited, he can't indiscriminately ban anyone he wants, there needs to be some rational reasoning behind any actions. That is why we have the courts, besides he will not proceed until the court removes the stay. This is not a national security issue worthy of a ban.
His power in any area is not unlimited, he can't indiscriminately ban anyone he wants, there needs to be some rational reasoning behind any actions. That is why we have the courts, besides he will not proceed until the court removes the stay. This is not a national security issue worthy of a ban.
That is not why we have the courts; the courts are not there as a "check" on the President's Constitutional power to make foreign policy. What these judges are doing is re-writing the Constitution to give them extraordinary powers that they were never granted, and they are even re-interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, applying it to non-citizens who live abroad.
And this is a national security issue worthy of a ban. The Boston Bombers were refugees. The recent Columbus, Ohio attack was committed by a Somali refugee. Look at what's happening in Germany. Do you want that here?
Have you read the law that pertains to the Presidents specific power to limit or outright ban immigration of any group or class of immigrants? That law is clear. It is not in the slightest bit ambiguous. And it says "if he deems such immigration is not in the best interest of the United States." That is the only reason he needs.
The President has a rational and reason behind this ban. It is the risk of terrorists entering our country, because there is not sufficient means of knowing who these people are. They do not have sufficient documents to know who they are. And since the Presidents primary responsibility is to keep U.S. citizens safe, the ban on immigrants from certain parts of the world, certain countries, makes good sense. It is good policy.
You are simply parroting the talking points of liberal commentators and the attorneys you are apparently following. Have you ever taken a course on the Constitution? Do you know what the First Amendment says? The First Amendment is being grossly misinterpreted by some of these people. It does not say that the United States government may not "favor" one religion over another. What it says is that the United States Government may not establish a religion as the Officially Recognized Religion. This has nothing to do with foreign policy or immigration policy at all. Foreigners are not entitled to our Constitutional protections. The U.S. has always favored Christians over other religions in immigration policy throughout our history. That isn't wrong, because there is a vast cultural divide between Christian Culture and the culture of other religions.
That is not why we have the courts; the courts are not there as a "check" on the President's Constitutional power to make foreign policy. What these judges are doing is re-writing the Constitution to give them extraordinary powers that they were never granted, and they are even re-interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, applying it to non-citizens who live abroad.
And this is a national security issue worthy of a ban. The Boston Bombers were refugees. The recent Columbus, Ohio attack was committed by a Somali refugee. Look at what's happening in Germany. Do you want that here?
Have you read the law that pertains to the Presidents specific power to limit or outright ban immigration of any group or class of immigrants? That law is clear. It is not in the slightest bit ambiguous. And it says "if he deems such immigration is not in the best interest of the United States." That is the only reason he needs.
The President has a rational and reason behind this ban. It is the risk of terrorists entering our country, because there is not sufficient means of knowing who these people are. They do not have sufficient documents to know who they are. And since the Presidents primary responsibility is to keep U.S. citizens safe, the ban on immigrants from certain parts of the world, certain countries, makes good sense. It is good policy.
You are simply parroting the talking points of liberal commentators and the attorneys you are apparently following. Have you ever taken a course on the Constitution? Do you know what the First Amendment says? The First Amendment is being grossly misinterpreted by some of these people. It does not say that the United States government may not "favor" one religion over another. What it says is that the United States Government may not establish a religion as the Officially Recognized Religion. This has nothing to do with foreign policy or immigration policy at all. Foreigners are not entitled to our Constitutional protections. The U.S. has always favored Christians over other religions in immigration policy throughout our history. That isn't wrong, because there is a vast cultural divide between Christian Culture and the culture of other religions.
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. 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. Our vetting procedures have worked fine for decades and they have put in improvements over the years, if Trump has a plan to strengthen our system let's hear it.
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. 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. Our vetting procedures have worked fine for decades and they have put in improvements over the years, if Trump has a plan to strengthen our system let's hear it.
I thought I answered that question, but I'll try again:
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.
Since the countries that Obama listed are indeed hotbeds of terrorist activity, why does it make sense to you to allow them unfettered access to our country, when we have no means of properly determining who they are and their motives?
Your views on what is foreign policy are unimportant. You have not shown you have a good knowledge of our Constitution or of our Separation of Powers, or the Power granted to the President. The fact is that immigration policy is foreign policy. And that power belongs to the President, whether you like it or not.
How does this make us "less safe?" Which "generals" and who in the State Department has said this? The State Department answers to and works for the President. They are not the ones that make foreign policy. They work for President Trump. We cannot have a State Department that goes against the President of the United States. HE is the Commander-in-Chief. It is HIS policy that dictates, not someone in the State Department, which is why we must get rid of all former Obama holdovers. Our government cannot work if there are divided allegiances at the top. There must be unity. All Obama holdovers must go.
Our "vetting procedures have not worked." The reason President Trump wants to put a temporary hold on immigration from dangerous areas of the world is to prevent undesirables from slipping in until we can come up with a better system.
Tell me, if we had a serious terrorist attack on our soil by some Syrian refugees in the next 30 days, would you blame Donald Trump? I'm betting your answer is "yes."
Ruling based in nothing more than 'feelings.'
Some of these comments are similar to my own after the first travel ban was blocked.
Confusion about the Establishment Clause
The "Establishment Clause" has nothing to do with foreign policy, or how the U.S. Government may treat foreigners who may not share our values. The so-called "establishment clause" has been expanded by the Left to mean things that are not explicitly stated in the very simple text, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It is a huge leap to twist this into anything other than "shall make no law," but that is what the Left has done, and these judges are now applying it to how we treat foreigners!
Judicial Overreach
"It’s hard to see how the logic of this temporary restraining order would ever permit a Trump administration to have any immigration policy whatsoever with regard to majority-Muslim countries."
This would make any immigration policy "unconstitutional."
The power to make decisions about who may or may not enter the country is vested in the Executive branch. Not the Judicial Branch.
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.
