So after losing a second time in court on his executive order suspending... everything(?) from seven Muslimterror laiden countries Trump has vowed to take the case all the way way to the Supreme Court. And by the case we mean a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of unconstitutional order that's doing real harm.
Discuss.
This isn't the first travel ban in US history. I can't stand how media makes Trump out to be some sort of monster. In my opinion and probably many others too, he's doing the right thing.
This isn't the first travel ban in US history. I can't stand how media makes Trump out to be some sort of monster. In my opinion and probably many others too, he's doing the right thing.
Did you read your article? The party where it kept going and mentioned how we were supposed to end the overt racism in 1965?
And how is it the right thing?
This isn't the first travel ban in US history. I can't stand how media makes Trump out to be some sort of monster.
So because other people in the past have done the same thing that Trump does, that automatically makes it not-wrong?
No, that doesn't make sense.
In my opinion and probably many others too, he's doing the right thing.
So because other people agree with this thing, it therefore becomes the right thing?
No, that doesn't make sense.
See, argument from a bandwagon doesn't fly around here. What are the reasons you believe legalized discrimination against Muslims - which is both illegal and unconstitutional - is something we should be doing? Don't just cite that other people agree with it, explain WHY they agree that we should be doing the unconstitutional thing.
Because as FourDogsinaHorseSuit said, you missed the key point in the article you cited, which is that legalized discrimination has indeed been rife throughout the history of American immigration policy AND THAT IS WRONG.
"Legalized discrimination against Muslim" way to spin that one. I know some people don't like to admit it but there is a group of people in this world who have declared war on our culture. What harm can come from temporarily freezing immigration until we have a better system of seeing who is and isn't coming in our country? The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to. As far as being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will decide that. Unfortunately there are laws stating that he can and laws stating that he can't.
"Legalized discrimination against Muslim" way to spin that one.
It's not spin when POTUS puts together a commission to brainstorm a way to write the Muslim ban legally. Unfortunately, the intent matters to the law as well, and "figure out how to do this illegal thing legally" is a quick way to write an illegal thing.
What harm can come from temporarily freezing immigration until we have a better system of seeing who is and isn't coming in our country?
Trump's travel ban plays directly into the narrative ISIS spins to the people it recruits. It causes direct harm by inflating the ranks of the very enemy it's supposed to be defending us against.
"Legalized discrimination against Muslim" way to spin that one. I know some people don't like to admit it but there is a group of people in this world who have declared war on our culture. What harm can come from temporarily freezing immigration until we have a better system of seeing who is and isn't coming in our country? The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to. As far as being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will decide that. Unfortunately there are laws stating that he can and laws stating that he can't.
It's not spin when he said so time and time again during the campaign.
Also you do know that terrorists haven't come from these countries right? They've come from others (like Saudi Arabia, for instance) but not these seven countries. As the judge said 'you have to prove your rational is based in fact.'
Last I heard, Trump seemed more keen on issuing a "brand new" order (presumably one better vetted by White House counsel) than fighting it out over the old one in the courts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to.
That's a pretty big "if".
Obama never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Obama Administration.
Bush never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Bush Administration.
Clinton never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Clinton Administration.
Reagan never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Reagan Administration.
In fact, no president has ever suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries has ever committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil.
So you will understand that it is very difficult to swallow the claim that suspending entry from these seven countries is suddenly "key" to protecting our rights and well being. I myself have lived my entire life in this country and have not even once been murdered in my bed by a crazed Somali.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to. As far as being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will decide that. Unfortunately there are laws stating that he can and laws stating that he can't.
Unfortunately his ban didn't just effect muslims travelling direct from those countries though. The way it was worded left it very unclear as to who should be effected so there were lots of stories of about the front line officers unsure if it applied to people who had visas , green cards and other permits that should have allowed them
entry, likewise people like Mo Farah were unsure if they could get into the country or not.
Last I heard, Trump seemed more keen on issuing a "brand new" order (presumably one better vetted by White House counsel) than fighting it out over the old one in the courts.
The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to. As far as being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will decide that. Unfortunately there are laws stating that he can and laws stating that he can't.
Unfortunately his ban didn't just effect muslims travelling direct from those countries though. The way it was worded left it very unclear as to who should be effected so there were lots of stories of about the front line officers unsure if it applied to people who had visas , green cards and other permits that should have allowed them
entry, likewise people like Mo Farah were unsure if they could get into the country or not.
The way this order was written and implemented pretty much guaranteed that a court would suspend it. By making it applicable to people who already had Green Cards and visas, it ignored a ton-load of due process provisions. That's procedural level law and it's gonna irk any judge, no matter what his/her political leanings are. Laws and executive orders include grandfather clauses specifically to avoid this issue.
Seriously, though, the exception for non-Muslims makes it on its face unconstitutional. And thus far it hasn't survived any legal challenges.
And yes, challenging presidential power is a Good Thing. And I would say that regardless of who controlled which branches of government.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Seriously, though, the exception for non-Muslims makes it on its face unconstitutional. And thus far it hasn't survived any legal challenges.
To be fair, the challenges so far have mostly been on narrow procedural matters, the exemption isn't explicitly for non-Muslims, and the law does give the president very broad authority over immigration. I do expect it to lose in the Supreme Court, especially with the precedent of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, but there's just enough wiggle room there that I'm prepared for disappointment. Especially if Trump issues a "brand new" order which fixes the due process problems that, as Lithl said, make the current one particularly radioactive to judges.
And yes, challenging presidential power is a Good Thing. And I would say that regardless of who controlled which branches of government.
When I objected to Obama's executive shenanigans, you would not believe how many liberals were like, "No, it's okay, because he's using this power for good!"
"You would not believe" is an empty idiom, by the way. I'm quite sure you do believe it.
But yeah, the power of the executive order has been ballooning for many administrations now. If there's any silver lining to Trump's excesses, it may be that they finally wake people up to the problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There's a host of reasons why this order is unconstitutional. But those are not all reasons to grant a restraining order.
The restraining order was given because legal immigrants were denied habius corpus, and the government refused to disclose why they had to be banned immediately.
Good for him!
Baning entrance from the seven countries with historical connections to terrorism and with the majority of population being a part of a religion that is deeply connected with the largest number of terrorist attacks in human history...terrorist attack specifically in the name of religion...is probably the best idea that Trump have had recently. I don't care for liberals crying how this is not right because it is discriminatory because in the end it keeps people safe or at the very least lowers the odds of an terrorist attack from a foreigner entering the US. If Europe had done the same two years ago and banned immigrants access to their countries for the sake of their own people than maybe there would have been less terrorist attacks made by terrorists who came to Europe alongside immigrants, but no, not looking racist and being PC was more important to the leaders of European countries than the safety of their own people.
Good for Trump! I fully support his decision.
If there was any facts to what you said, you should be pissed off that the ban did not target Saudi Arabia. Not only was this ban a blatant violation of most AMERICAN RIGHTS as citizens of states were detained, but it didn't even target one of the primary players in the 9/11 attacks.
The only thing that I think that he should have done is that he should have banned more than seven countries. He should have banned all muslim countries just to be sure or, as you've all mentioned above, temporarily freeze immigration to US for the citizens of muslim countries. The safety of his own people should come first.
And still wouldn't have made the US safer from terrorists. With the exception of 9/11 all terrorist attacks committed on US soil have been commited by homegrown lunatics...
The only thing his Muslim ban did was act as a rallying cry for any nutter that wanted to peddle a clash of civilisations narrative, both Muslim and non Muslim alike. On the Muslim side it will act to increase recruitment in both the hellholes we have created with our foreign policies and the lone wolf self radicallised idividuals that are already in the US and Europe who won't be picked up by the travel ban as they are already here legally.
This all ignores the fact that to be considered a Refugee and granted leave to enter the US you will already have to have gone through some of the strictest vetting that exists for the purpose anywhere in the world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
You addressed the Saudi Arabia part, but not the collateral damage part about his ban being worded so poorly, it ended up targeting citizens or people with green cards who were vetted and living here legally as well.
Kahedron's point I assume you also brushed away. And you plan on condemning the KKK for all the domestic terrorism they perpetrated since post Civil War times?
I have not yet heard any ban supporter, or media outlet, compare the old "regular" vetting to the "extreme" vettingv that this ban was supposed to buy time to set up. That is, what was so wrong with our already vigorous processes?
Without that, the ban is more of a message than anything else. And it resonates with people who have the impression -wrongly - that we do not already vet immigrants or that there is a flood of refugees from Syria pouring into camps like we see in Eastern Europe. In that sense, it more horns for the conservative echo chamber than policy.
"Legalized discrimination against Muslim" way to spin that one. I know some people don't like to admit it but there is a group of people in this world who have declared war on our culture. What harm can come from temporarily freezing immigration until we have a better system of seeing who is and isn't coming in our country? The presidents job is to protect the rights and well being of the AMERICAN people and if suspending an aliens entry is key to doing so, then he has every right to. As far as being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will decide that. Unfortunately there are laws stating that he can and laws stating that he can't.
Take a step back. Look at the CDC's website for information regarding annual death tolls in America. Over 2.6 million people died in America last year alone. If we lost 100 people to terrorist attacks, its a drop in the bucket.
You'd save more lives focusing on gun violence (~33K) drunk driving (~10K) or heroin (~30K) This implies the travel ban is pretty much pointless. Its laughable, and actions like this makes people hate America more.
I have not yet heard any ban supporter, or media outlet, compare the old "regular" vetting to the "extreme" vettingv that this ban was supposed to buy time to set up. That is, what was so wrong with our already vigorous processes
This is exactly what I've been saying to people about Trump's ban. It looks to me like the processes the US has been using to vet people coming from these countries (and other countries linked to terrorism) have been working very well since 9/11. What was the need to institute more extreme vetting?
Seriously, though, the exception for non-Muslims makes it on its face unconstitutional. And thus far it hasn't survived any legal challenges.
To be fair, the challenges so far have mostly been on narrow procedural matters, the exemption isn't explicitly for non-Muslims, and the law does give the president very broad authority over immigration. I do expect it to lose in the Supreme Court, especially with the precedent of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, but there's just enough wiggle room there that I'm prepared for disappointment. Especially if Trump issues a "brand new" order which fixes the due process problems that, as Lithl said, make the current one particularly radioactive to judges.
He has said it is a Muslim ban, though. Of course, the law doesn't consider original intent.
I will say, his religious right supporters are going to be pissed if there isn't an exception for Christians.
And yes, challenging presidential power is a Good Thing. And I would say that regardless of who controlled which branches of government.
When I objected to Obama's executive shenanigans, you would not believe how many liberals were like, "No, it's okay, because he's using this power for good!"
"You would not believe" is an empty idiom, by the way. I'm quite sure you do believe it.
But yeah, the power of the executive order has been ballooning for many administrations now. If there's any silver lining to Trump's excesses, it may be that they finally wake people up to the problem.
Yeah, I think pundits, politicians, and sundry pinheads use "is this constitutional?" when they want to backdoor-attack something. That's why both Bernie Sanders and every racist Southern Congressman from when Bernie Sanders was in college can invoke "states' rights" for gay marriage and segregation respectively. But democracy really only works if we have all these checks on power.
Right now, we don't. We're starting to see a few Senate Republicans grow a spine and challenge Trump (seven on the Puzder nomination), but it's been more the courts, the press, the scientists, and (surely a surprise to leftists) the intelligence community who have been challenging Trump.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Yeah, I think pundits, politicians, and sundry pinheads use "is this constitutional?" when they want to backdoor-attack something. That's why both Bernie Sanders and every racist Southern Congressman from when Bernie Sanders was in college can invoke "states' rights" for gay marriage and segregation respectively. But democracy really only works if we have all these checks on power.
Right now, we don't. We're starting to see a few Senate Republicans grow a spine and challenge Trump (seven on the Puzder nomination), but it's been more the courts, the press, the scientists, and (surely a surprise to leftists) the intelligence community who have been challenging Trump.
Because it's rare to see a group complain about the violation of laws when it directly benefits them. It's a test of integrity.
Muslimterror laiden countries Trump has vowed to take the case all the way way to the Supreme Court. And by the case we mean a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of unconstitutional order that's doing real harm.Discuss.
This isn't the first travel ban in US history. I can't stand how media makes Trump out to be some sort of monster. In my opinion and probably many others too, he's doing the right thing.
Did you read your article? The party where it kept going and mentioned how we were supposed to end the overt racism in 1965?
And how is it the right thing?
Big moderator ruins everything!
No, that doesn't make sense.
So because other people agree with this thing, it therefore becomes the right thing?
No, that doesn't make sense.
See, argument from a bandwagon doesn't fly around here. What are the reasons you believe legalized discrimination against Muslims - which is both illegal and unconstitutional - is something we should be doing? Don't just cite that other people agree with it, explain WHY they agree that we should be doing the unconstitutional thing.
Because as FourDogsinaHorseSuit said, you missed the key point in the article you cited, which is that legalized discrimination has indeed been rife throughout the history of American immigration policy AND THAT IS WRONG.
Trump's travel ban plays directly into the narrative ISIS spins to the people it recruits. It causes direct harm by inflating the ranks of the very enemy it's supposed to be defending us against.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
It's not spin when he said so time and time again during the campaign.
Also you do know that terrorists haven't come from these countries right? They've come from others (like Saudi Arabia, for instance) but not these seven countries. As the judge said 'you have to prove your rational is based in fact.'
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Obama never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Obama Administration.
Bush never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Bush Administration.
Clinton never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Clinton Administration.
Reagan never suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil during the Reagan Administration.
In fact, no president has ever suspended entry from these seven countries, and no visitor or immigrant from these seven countries has ever committed a lethal terrorist attack on American soil.
So you will understand that it is very difficult to swallow the claim that suspending entry from these seven countries is suddenly "key" to protecting our rights and well being. I myself have lived my entire life in this country and have not even once been murdered in my bed by a crazed Somali.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unfortunately his ban didn't just effect muslims travelling direct from those countries though. The way it was worded left it very unclear as to who should be effected so there were lots of stories of about the front line officers unsure if it applied to people who had visas , green cards and other permits that should have allowed them
entry, likewise people like Mo Farah were unsure if they could get into the country or not.
For one person it didn't matter that they hadn't been born in one of the countries just that he had travelled to one in the course of his job.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Perhaps you missed the thread title?
The way this order was written and implemented pretty much guaranteed that a court would suspend it. By making it applicable to people who already had Green Cards and visas, it ignored a ton-load of due process provisions. That's procedural level law and it's gonna irk any judge, no matter what his/her political leanings are. Laws and executive orders include grandfather clauses specifically to avoid this issue.
Seriously, though, the exception for non-Muslims makes it on its face unconstitutional. And thus far it hasn't survived any legal challenges.
And yes, challenging presidential power is a Good Thing. And I would say that regardless of who controlled which branches of government.
On phasing:
When I objected to Obama's executive shenanigans, you would not believe how many liberals were like, "No, it's okay, because he's using this power for good!"
"You would not believe" is an empty idiom, by the way. I'm quite sure you do believe it.
But yeah, the power of the executive order has been ballooning for many administrations now. If there's any silver lining to Trump's excesses, it may be that they finally wake people up to the problem.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The restraining order was given because legal immigrants were denied habius corpus, and the government refused to disclose why they had to be banned immediately.
If there was any facts to what you said, you should be pissed off that the ban did not target Saudi Arabia. Not only was this ban a blatant violation of most AMERICAN RIGHTS as citizens of states were detained, but it didn't even target one of the primary players in the 9/11 attacks.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
And still wouldn't have made the US safer from terrorists. With the exception of 9/11 all terrorist attacks committed on US soil have been commited by homegrown lunatics...
The only thing his Muslim ban did was act as a rallying cry for any nutter that wanted to peddle a clash of civilisations narrative, both Muslim and non Muslim alike. On the Muslim side it will act to increase recruitment in both the hellholes we have created with our foreign policies and the lone wolf self radicallised idividuals that are already in the US and Europe who won't be picked up by the travel ban as they are already here legally.
This all ignores the fact that to be considered a Refugee and granted leave to enter the US you will already have to have gone through some of the strictest vetting that exists for the purpose anywhere in the world.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Kahedron's point I assume you also brushed away. And you plan on condemning the KKK for all the domestic terrorism they perpetrated since post Civil War times?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Without that, the ban is more of a message than anything else. And it resonates with people who have the impression -wrongly - that we do not already vet immigrants or that there is a flood of refugees from Syria pouring into camps like we see in Eastern Europe. In that sense, it more horns for the conservative echo chamber than policy.
Take a step back. Look at the CDC's website for information regarding annual death tolls in America. Over 2.6 million people died in America last year alone. If we lost 100 people to terrorist attacks, its a drop in the bucket.
You'd save more lives focusing on gun violence (~33K) drunk driving (~10K) or heroin (~30K) This implies the travel ban is pretty much pointless. Its laughable, and actions like this makes people hate America more.
My Buying Thread
This is exactly what I've been saying to people about Trump's ban. It looks to me like the processes the US has been using to vet people coming from these countries (and other countries linked to terrorism) have been working very well since 9/11. What was the need to institute more extreme vetting?
He has said it is a Muslim ban, though. Of course, the law doesn't consider original intent.
I will say, his religious right supporters are going to be pissed if there isn't an exception for Christians.
Yeah, I think pundits, politicians, and sundry pinheads use "is this constitutional?" when they want to backdoor-attack something. That's why both Bernie Sanders and every racist Southern Congressman from when Bernie Sanders was in college can invoke "states' rights" for gay marriage and segregation respectively. But democracy really only works if we have all these checks on power.
Right now, we don't. We're starting to see a few Senate Republicans grow a spine and challenge Trump (seven on the Puzder nomination), but it's been more the courts, the press, the scientists, and (surely a surprise to leftists) the intelligence community who have been challenging Trump.
On phasing: