The new travel ban from Muslim nations has been blocked by a Federal judge in Hawaii. Just breaking.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/ ... l?adkey=bn

A travel ban on nations where the terrorists aren't coming from isn't a travel ban. It's simply a con game.

The dumbass that promised a Muslim ban can't get his Muslim ban through court. Sad!

I'm split here. The travel ban was a bit more detailed than the first mess created. However, the administration showed that there's not an urgent need to have it in place because they took over a month to rewrite it. A MONTH! And it still does not answer questions: such as why are we banning people from countries that have not produced terrorists attacks against the US but we still welcome Egyptians and Saudis and Jordanians and Emiratis...from countries that had citizens partake in 9/11 and/or have ties to the Trump organization?

I will say, though, Democrats should not be too eager to celebrate this. While they hand yet another defeat to Trump with this:
1. If there is indeed a terror attack provoked my any citizen (or descendant) of these nations, it's all on them.
2. It's starting to seem like opposing for the sake of opposing. Of course, Trump could go through Congress and sign a ban that withstands constitutional muster, but I'm guessing that's too much work for the man who said that he alone can do it all (which explains why his supporters swoon over his executive orders while having decried Obama's).

einsteinboricua wrote:

I will say, though, Democrats should not be too eager to celebrate this. While they hand yet another defeat to Trump with this:
1. If there is indeed a terror attack provoked my any citizen (or descendant) of these nations, it's all on them.

They will claim though the travel ban outraged the terrorists and was what motivated the attack.

Omg! Muslims, refugees, terrorists!! We're all gonna die!!!

330west wrote:

Omg! Muslims, refugees, terrorists!! We're all gonna die!!!

Thanks for your illuminating contribution to this thread

As for the temporary block, I will refrain from commenting until having read the text of the injunction in order to see what the judge has based his ruling upon. That said, lots of legal opinion seems to indicate that the ban will hold up in higher courts.

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

Omg! Muslims, refugees, terrorists!! We're all gonna die!!!

Thanks for your illuminating contribution to this thread

As for the temporary block, I will refrain from commenting until having read the text of the injunction in order to see what the judge has based his ruling upon. That said, lots of legal opinion seems to indicate that the ban will hold up in higher courts.

It's a joke, dipshit. Are you in favor of the ban?

330west wrote:

Are you in favor of the ban?

Ignoring the first part of your comment, yes I am in favor of the ban.

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

Are you in favor of the ban?

Ignoring the first part of your comment, yes I am in favor of the ban.

So fear or hate?

330west wrote:

So fear or hate?

Don't reduce reasons for support of the travel ban to two narrow and loaded options like those. Your question is phrased to make anyone who supports the travel ban look either ignorant or racist.

I support the travel ban because I believe that any country (not just the United States) has the fundamental right to choose who is allowed to enter.

MaverickM11 wrote:

The dumbass that promised a Muslim ban can't get his Muslim ban through court. Sad!

What sucks is in a 9 person Supreme Court Trump wins but they know it would be 4-4 and revert to the earlier decision.

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

So fear or hate?

Don't reduce reasons for support of the travel ban to two narrow and loaded options like those. Your question is phrased to make anyone who supports the travel ban look either ignorant or racist.

I support the travel ban because I believe that any country (not just the United States) has the fundamental right to choose who is allowed to enter.

Fear and ignorance. Figured that would be the case.

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

Are you in favor of the ban?

Ignoring the first part of your comment, yes I am in favor of the ban.

Why? What good is a ban against Muslim nations that don't have a propensity for their citizens to launch an attack on the U.S, while the nations that do seem to breed the terrorists more often are left off?

This is nothing but fear-mongering, and making people want to hate Muslims. And you buy it every flippin' time, it seems.

I don't think a ban is necessary, but I would lend a little more sympathetic ear to it if ALL those nations were included. But this is just a political game, and isn't a serious attempt to protect the United States.

NIKV69 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

The dumbass that promised a Muslim ban can't get his Muslim ban through court. Sad!

What sucks is in a 9 person Supreme Court Trump wins but they know it would be 4-4 and revert to the earlier decision.

What a wonderful thing.

Hillis wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

Are you in favor of the ban?

Ignoring the first part of your comment, yes I am in favor of the ban.

Why? What good is a ban against Muslim nations that don't have a propensity for their citizens to launch an attack on the U.S, while the nations that do seem to breed the terrorists more often are left off?

This is nothing but fear-mongering, and making people want to hate Muslims. And you buy it every flippin' time, it seems.

I don't think a ban is necessary, but I would lend a little more sympathetic ear to it if ALL those nations were included. But this is just a political game, and isn't a serious attempt to protect the United States.

My guess is he's a fat old white guy in flyover country who's never even experienced terrorism first hand.

Iraq has been removed from ban list.

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

So fear or hate?

Don't reduce reasons for support of the travel ban to two narrow and loaded options like those. Your question is phrased to make anyone who supports the travel ban look either ignorant or racist.

I support the travel ban because I believe that any country (not just the United States) has the fundamental right to choose who is allowed to enter.

No one is arguing that the country can not choose who enters. The only problem is everything the administration has said in the past: Trump promised a Muslim ban, Bannon wants a religious war, Flynn told us it was reasonable to be afraid of Islam, Trumpazee golden boy and pedophilia uber fan Milo has likened Islam to cancer, and future school mass-shooter Stephen Miller has been banging the drum of the Muslim threat forever. On top of that Trump's own administration has pointed out this is not going to have an effect on safety (see ya Iraq!), and no one can point to any attack or threat past, present, or future from the countries involved to justify the ban. So Trump promised his knuckle draggers a Muslim ban, and now he has to deliver, and here we are with failed round II. Moreover, thanks to Trump, your risk of a Trumpanzee attacking an Indian American thinking they're Arab is far greater than any threat that might possibly but not likely be prevented by the ban, so what is it, ignorance or racism? And before a trumpanzee honks that "Islam is not a race", if you have to make that statement, congrats on missing the forest.

Hillis wrote:

What a wonderful thing.

Until Gorsuch gets confirmed anyway.

NIKV69 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

What a wonderful thing.

Until Gorsuch gets confirmed anyway.

What makes you so sure that Gorsuch and Kennedy will vote to support the ban? Heck, even Roberts can be swayed to vote against it. The only branch of government to have had some legitimacy and dignity will have lost all that's left if judges vote just to please their president and not because they have thought deeply about it.

We need more Kennedys in the SCOTUS. As much as I like Ginsburg, I want people who can make a rational decision: weighing both the implications of a ruling and how it stacks up against the constitution. What do they prioritize? Making a side of the political spectrum happy or ensuring that the issue at question can pass constitutional muster?

I haven't read the details on this ban, but feel it is probably as stupid as the first on.

IIRC, the original ban was to last for 60 days while they "figured out what the hell is going on". IMO, it would have been far more intelligent for Trump to call in some folks at State on Day One and told them to slow things down for 60 days. That slowdown could have been done quietly and some clearly deserving (like translators with 4 years of service) could quietly be brought in. Just like others with 2 to 4 years of "vetting".

A major issue with Trump is that he couldn't be bothered to learn what vetting was already in place before doing something stupid.

There is a clear need to for Trump to learn that he is only a President, not an Emperor, and needs function within the legal environment

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

MSPNWA wrote:

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

MSPNWA wrote:

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

Mmm.. Who is a traitor? The guy that breaks the constitution or the one that upholds it?

Of course the nutjobs at the GOP could have worked with Obama to have a full supreme court, but they chose to obstruct and now it is falling on their feet.
Within your, faulty, logic the GOP should be charged for treason. They enabled the one man supreme Court after all.

But since they are busy with the wholesale of all of America, that is just a minor thing.

Best regards
Thomas

The biggest threat to American citizens are.... their fellow American citizens, yet it's always easier to place the blame on the "evil (Muslamic) foreigners".

The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.

MSPNWA wrote:

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

The judge should be tried for doing his job and upholding the Constitution? If you want to find a traitor, try looking in the mirror. Assuming you have a reflection of course.

MSPNWA wrote:

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

And stupid comment of the day goes to.....


Listen, in a court room the judge is a one man supreme court, however, it can be appealed, that's why there is a separate judicial system.

I don't believe anything the president has done is illegal. Federal Law gives the president broad powers on the issue of immigration. The Ban does not specifically mention the word muslim at all. All the nations included in the ban were the same nations that came under scrutiny during the Obama administration. Really the only issue I see from a legal standpoint is that the order paints a broad brush and denies everyone entry without due process. If the ban is unconstitutional on those grounds, I can see that. To call it unconstitutional based on a religious ban is hogwash, because the order doesn't mention the word muslim at all and not everyone from the nations on the list is in fact muslim.

My concern with this ban is if it is upheld by the supreme court, then I fear that the president and congress will both lose control over the immigration system in this country. I am afraid that someone who at a later date is denied entry into this country, can simply cite this case as to why the federal code on immigration is unconstitutional, and he would have a very strong argument to do so. That is why I hope that if the ban is upheld by the supreme court, the ruling is a very narrow one, with clear language on this issue. If you get a broad ruling, then I feel the laws themselves are ripe for a challenge.

Lastly, it should be noted that the only thing that has happened so far is that an injunction was issued delaying the implementation of the ban. The actual merits of the ban were not ruled on. The injunction is in place until the case is actually heard. One other interesting thing I am eager to see is do the states actually have legal standing to bring the lawsuit? Many people argued last time that they didn't, and it was a case that was not made by the Justice Dept lawyers last time. Lets see what happens.

KLDC10 wrote:

:
As for the temporary block, I will refrain from commenting until having read the text of the injunction in order to see what the judge has based his ruling upon. That said, lots of legal opinion seems to indicate that the ban will hold up in higher courts.

Yes, Wapo is reporting this morning that 5 judges on the 9th Circuit have dissented and feel the first ban should not have been blocked. It is moot now but is a significant opinion that may come to play again soon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... ada1052c26

Ken777 wrote:

IMO, it would have been far more intelligent for Trump to call in some folks at State on Day One and told them to slow things down for 60 days. That slowdown could have been done quietly and some clearly deserving (like translators with 4 years of service) could quietly be brought in. Just like others with 2 to 4 years of "vetting".

I agree with this, there are other ways. He could just tell the State department to cut funding for embassy visa staff, for example. No drama needed.

apodino wrote:

I don't believe anything the president has done is illegal.

Maybe not on this issue, but I think POTUS is up to his neck in doing illegal stuff for most of his adult life.

apodino wrote:

Federal Law gives the president broad powers on the issue of immigration. The Ban does not specifically mention the word muslim at all.

Don't insult my intelligence. It's limited to like 7 or 8 nations that are Muslim. Do you REALLY need to have it spelled out for you?

apodino wrote:

All the nations included in the ban were the same nations that came under scrutiny during the Obama administration.

"Scrutiny" is one thing; a ban is quite another. And the ban is bogus because it didn't ban people from nations that have a history of seeing its citizens carry out most terrorists attacks. As I said earlier, I'm against any ban, but if he was going to be serious about it, why not add Saudi Arabia? But he isn't serious about it. All he wants is to make you afraid, and you are.

apodino wrote:

Really the only issue I see from a legal standpoint is that the order paints a broad brush and denies everyone entry without due process.

Gee, is that all that's holding it up? A little thing like that. (yes, sarcasm). Thanks for stating the insanely obvious.

If the ban is unconstitutional on those grounds, I can see that. To call it unconstitutional based on a religious ban is hogwash, because the order doesn't mention the word muslim at all and not everyone from the nations on the list is in fact muslim.

apodino wrote:

My concern with this ban is if it is upheld by the supreme court, then I fear that the president and congress will both lose control over the immigration system in this country. I am afraid that someone who at a later date is denied entry into this country, can simply cite this case as to why the federal code on immigration is unconstitutional, and he would have a very strong argument to do so. That is why I hope that if the ban is upheld by the supreme court, the ruling is a very narrow one, with clear language on this issue. If you get a broad ruling, then I feel the laws themselves are ripe for a challenge.

It's likely if it went to the SCOTUS now, the ban would be upheld. And that isn't a bad thing. It's not a serious attempt to protect the nations. LIke I said if Saudi citizens aren't on the list, then it does no good, even if I were for it. I think you're biggest concern is that you're already piss-in-you-pants scared and this just reinforces that mindset for you.

apodino wrote:

All the nations included in the ban were the same nations that came under scrutiny during the Obama administration.

I must have missed the various instances of Obama actively campaigning against Muslims and calling them a threat to the nation. Seems like the judge also missed the various instances the Obama administration campaigned on this issue. Fact is: Speech is silver but silence is golden.

Trump is not doing himself any favors by saying this second bill is a watered down version of the first one (which means its original intent is the same, just not as strict); or his surrogates saying that the real intent of this bill remains unchanged from the first one.

You want a ban that passes muster? Go through Congress.

apodino wrote:

To call it unconstitutional based on a religious ban is hogwash, because the order doesn't mention the word muslim at all and not everyone from the nations on the list is in fact muslim.

The order itself doesn't have to say it's Muslim at all. But actions leading to it are more than enough to see that rather than being a security concern, it's merely done to satisfy the Islamophobic sentiment of a few voters.

Similar to how same sex marriage bans were passed, not because gays posed a threat to society but simply to justify denying them equal rights.

apodino wrote:

My concern with this ban is if it is upheld by the supreme court, then I fear that the president and congress will both lose control over the immigration system in this country.

You mean if it's struck down...because if it's upheld, the president and Congress still retain power. It means this order passes muster (though with a partisan SCOTUS, I doubt that will be the merit). If it's struck down, then it means Congress and the president will have to consult with the courts (and the states) to ensure their concerns are satisfied (which shouldn't be a problem for a party that seeks to make states more powerful).

apodino wrote:

I am afraid that someone who at a later date is denied entry into this country, can simply cite this case as to why the federal code on immigration is unconstitutional, and he would have a very strong argument to do so.

No they wouldn't unless they're being discriminated by their religion or sexual orientation or background. If a refugee from Syria is applying for refugee status, the government needs to have a strong reason to deny that person the chance for a background check. You can say that, because Syria is in disarray, efforts to complete a background check may not be accurate. You can say that because of significant militant activism in Somalia, applications may not be accurate.

But you know what else can be said? That because of confirmed ties to terrorist groups, all Saudi visa applications will be halted. Because of civil unrest in Egypt and Yemen, no further visas can't be processed. But why are countries with confirmed ties to terrorism continuing to enjoy benefits that countries without cannot? 9/11 had Egyptians and Saudis...yet they're not included in the ban. No Iranian has been caught participating in a terror attack against the US, yet they're included in the ban. Oh wait a minute: the Trump Organization has no ties to those 6 countries mentioned.

mham001 wrote:

Ken777 wrote: IMO, it would have been far more intelligent for Trump to call in some folks at State on Day One and told them to slow things down for 60 days. That slowdown could have been done quietly and some clearly deserving (like translators with 4 years of service) could quietly be brought in. Just like others with 2 to 4 years of "vetting".I agree with this, there are other ways. He could just tell the State department to cut funding for embassy visa staff, for example. No drama needed.

The original ban was for 90 days, I think. Well, here we are, over a month after the Appeals Court ruling, and now we have another ban. Why, oh why, couldn't they figure out what the hell was going on without the ban? Or with some alternative method, instead of wasting a month trying to rewrite it?

That said, I don't have too much of an issue with the ban this time around.

tommy1808 wrote:

Mmm.. Who is a traitor? The guy that breaks the constitution or the one that upholds it?

Since you're the only one without a direct fallacious response, only an indirect one, you get the fun follow up questions!

Tell me how the judges' response to block the order upholds the law giving the President virtual full control over immigration policy, and show me where in the Constitution the aliens they are ruling for have these powerful rights of immigration. Specifically show everyone how President Trump is not following the Constitution and overreaching the law that gives him immigration authority by implementing these temporary bans.

Since you and many others seem to speak with such authority on who's right and who's wrong. It shouldn't be difficult for you.

vikkyvik wrote:

The original ban was for 90 days, I think. Well, here we are, over a month after the Appeals Court ruling, and now we have another ban. Why, oh why, couldn't they figure out what the hell was going on without the ban? Or with some alternative method, instead of wasting a month trying to rewrite it?

Because that would require some thought and competence, as well as giving up on a Muslim ban, none of which the administration is prepared to do

MSPNWA wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Mmm.. Who is a traitor? The guy that breaks the constitution or the one that upholds it?

Since you're the only one without a direct fallacious response, only an indirect one, you get the fun follow up questions!

Tell me how the judges' response to block the order upholds the law giving the President virtual full control over immigration policy, and show me where in the Constitution the aliens they are ruling for have these powerful rights of immigration. Specifically show everyone how President Trump is not following the Constitution and overreaching the law that gives him immigration authority by implementing these temporary bans.

Since you and many others seem to speak with such authority on who's right and who's wrong. It shouldn't be difficult for you.

You're not an attorney, correct? You've told us in the past you're an economist. So tell me, what exactly is your legal training? Constitutional law is rather complex, so I'll go ahead and turn it around and ask you to prove everything you've stated with cites to actual legal precedent.

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

So fear or hate?

Don't reduce reasons for support of the travel ban to two narrow and loaded options like those. Your question is phrased to make anyone who supports the travel ban look either ignorant or racist.

I support the travel ban because I believe that any country (not just the United States) has the fundamental right to choose who is allowed to enter.

you still didn't say why you think they should not enter?

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

330west wrote:

So fear or hate?

Don't reduce reasons for support of the travel ban to two narrow and loaded options like those. Your question is phrased to make anyone who supports the travel ban look either ignorant or racist.

I support the travel ban because I believe that any country (not just the United States) has the fundamental right to choose who is allowed to enter.

you still didn't say why you think they should not enter?

My guess is that he's either genuinely afraid or a racist, neither of which is something one would willingly admit to.

tommy1808 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

Mmm.. Who is a traitor? The guy that breaks the constitution or the one that upholds it?

Of course the nutjobs at the GOP could have worked with Obama to have a full supreme court, but they chose to obstruct and now it is falling on their feet.
Within your, faulty, logic the GOP should be charged for treason. They enabled the one man supreme Court after all.

But since they are busy with the wholesale of all of America, that is just a minor thing.

Best regards
Thomas

There is no point in arguing with these Trumpers. They are stuck in their cult.

MSPNWA wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Mmm.. Who is a traitor? The guy that breaks the constitution or the one that upholds it?

Tell me how the judges' response to block the order upholds the law giving the President virtual full control over immigration policy, and show me where in the Constitution the aliens they are ruling for have these powerful rights of immigration. Specifically show everyone how President Trump is not following the Constitution and overreaching the law that gives him immigration authority by implementing these temporary bans.

I think there is a ruling for you to read, that should lay it out nicely.
Virtually full control is not the same as full control. Full control would give him the right to sign an EO having everybody shot that is denied entry.
I would assume that his full control end's before the actual border, mostly likely when a visa is issued. The first ban denied people entry that already had permission to entry under current legislation and therefore can't be denied by a blanket ban.

Since you and many others seem to speak with such authority on who's right and who's wrong. It shouldn't be difficult for you.

I just tent to trust the legal system, and so should you. The USA is a state of law, and a President that wants to set that principle aside has to be stoped. People have to be sure that laws don't change after someone comitted to an action e.g. boarded a flight.
The Romans got that principle 2000 years ago, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, if your neanderthal of a president needs to catch up on two thousand years of legal philosophy, judges are the right people to teach him.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

I think there is a ruling for you to read, that should lay it out nicely.
Virtually full control is not the same as full control. Full control would give him the right to sign an EO having everybody shot that is denied entry.
I would assume that his full control end's before the actual border, mostly likely when a visa is issued. The first ban denied people entry that already had permission to entry under current legislation and therefore can't be denied by a blanket ban.

I just tent to trust the legal system, and so should you. The USA is a state of law, and a President that wants to set that principle aside has to be stoped. People have to be sure that laws don't change after someone comitted to an action e.g. boarded a flight.

Don't try to back your way out of this now. I've read the ruling, and I've read commentary on it from lawyers. Have you? It's made-up hogwash, and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent if allowed to go any further. The order will not pass a legal challenge, just like the previous ban wasn't going to. If it did, The United States would officially be without borders.

My belief about the judge's ruling, one shared by many others in this country, was "so stupid" that it was laughable to some here. Again, show me where the law and Constitution was violated by the President. Show me how Congress hasn't allowed the President to have full power over immigration policy with the Immigration laws of 1952 and 1965. Point out the sections of the Constitution that gives citizens the right to demand non-citizens to enter whenever and wherever they please. Point out where public universities have the right to immigrate any foreign student they wish or else claim "damages". I know you can't do that, because those rights don't exist. That tells me that you're lecturing me without any specific individual knowledge of laws of this country, and that you're an ignorant, hateful cheerleader because the judge's order, right or wrong, fits your personal ideology. Thankfully rule of law still wins here.

MSPNWA wrote:

Don't try to back your way out of this now. I've read the ruling, and I've read commentary on it from lawyers. Have you? It's made-up hogwash, and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent if allowed to go any further. The order will not pass a legal challenge, just like the previous ban wasn't going to. If it did, The United States would officially be without borders.

My belief about the judge's ruling, one shared by many others in this country, was "so stupid" that it was laughable to some here. Again, show me where the law and Constitution was violated by the President. Show me how Congress hasn't allowed the President to have full power over immigration policy with the Immigration laws of 1952 and 1965. Point out the sections of the Constitution that gives citizens the right to demand non-citizens to enter whenever and wherever they please. Point out where public universities have the right to immigrate any foreign student they wish or else claim "damages". I know you can't do that, because those rights don't exist. That tells me that you're lecturing me without any specific individual knowledge of laws of this country, and that you're an ignorant, hateful cheerleader because the judge's order, right or wrong, fits your personal ideology. Thankfully rule of law still wins here.

The point that you are unwilling to accept is that a law that would be legal and valid in every other respect will be struck down if it was found to have been implemented for malicious purpose.

MSPNWA wrote:

Don't try to back your way out of this now.

There is no need for a bogus discussion about an uncontested point. The neanderthals Government made an unconstitutional EO, the court called them out on it, and Putins trained monkey admitted the court is right. That is what it means if a government doesn´t challenge a ruling in a higher court. Unless you want to admit that Trump violated his oath of office that is, because if he thinks the EO is important to fulfill the duties of his office and he doesn´t challenge the court decision, he either does that, or knows it is unconstitutional to start with.

I've read the ruling, and I've read commentary on it from lawyers. Have you?

No, and there is no need to read an uncontested ruling that both sides agree is correct. Or are you talking about the new one? I haven´t seen a written ruling about that yet, could you please link it, and any "legal expert" that claims to have made an in dept study of the merits of a ruling lies and merely writes down his bias. Those things take longer that a couple of hours, which is the very reason why court cases can take so much time.

It's made-up hogwash,

If you think that someone that went through law school successfully,passed the bar exam, has proven his ability to interpret law correctly as a judge, has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate could still write "made up hogwash", you are seriously deluded. They can be wrong, but "hogwash" is dangerous extremism talking. But hey, when people start killing Judges in the USA, we at least know where to start looking...

and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent if allowed to go any further. The order will not pass a legal challenge, just like the previous ban wasn't going to. If it did, The United States would officially be without borders.

As a many times visitor to your country i can assure you that is BS, even before 9/11 you had very real borders.

Thankfully rule of law still wins here.

It already did.

best regards
Thomas

apodino wrote:

I don't believe anything the president has done is illegal. Federal Law gives the president broad powers on the issue of immigration. The Ban does not specifically mention the word muslim at all..

Well, this tidbit is still up on 45's website, and it states, quite clearly, what he wants, and that's a ban on Muslims.

"​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump"


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration

MSPNWA wrote:

Great, another dictatorial judge. A one-man Supreme Court. That's scary. That's anti-American. The judge should be tried for treason.

Please, do us all a favor and turn in your voters card; until you have completed a Civics class...damn shame the folks taking citizenship classes have a better understanding of the 3 ring circus of our government than some that just voted...

The president has authority to do the things he did here. Bizarre power grabs by the judicial branch notwithstanding.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

I don't believe anything the president has done is illegal. Federal Law gives the president broad powers on the issue of immigration. The Ban does not specifically mention the word muslim at all..

Well, this tidbit is still up on 45's website, and it states, quite clearly, what he wants, and that's a ban on Muslims.

"​DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump"


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration

But, that is also a bizarre statement by Trump. While technically the president probably can ban a religion from entering the country, that order (which is not the order AFAIK) would be troublesome.

einsteinboricua wrote:

And it still does not answer questions: such as why are we banning people from countries that have not produced terrorists attacks against the US but we still welcome Egyptians and Saudis and Jordanians and Emiratis...from countries that had citizens partake in 9/11 and/or have ties to the Trump organization?

Because those countries are particularly dysfunctional and have no clue who is holding their passports. If it truly was a "Muslim ban" there would be more countries on the list.

Wacker1000 wrote:

Because those countries are particularly dysfunctional and have no clue who is holding their passports. If it truly was a "Muslim ban" there would be more countries on the list.

But that's not the line used during the campaign and certainly not the line used for this Executive Order.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Wacker1000 wrote:

Because those countries are particularly dysfunctional and have no clue who is holding their passports. If it truly was a "Muslim ban" there would be more countries on the list.

But that's not the line used during the campaign and certainly not the line used for this Executive Order.

Apparently neither does Saudi Arabia and many other nations, but they're not on the ban, are they? No, this is about one thing, and that's scaring people. It won't keep us any safer. It won't stop a single terrorist attack, but it makes those who are already frightened of every shadow even more frightened. This is the same MO the Nazi's used about 80 years ago.

Flighty wrote:

The president has authority to do the things he did here.

Apparently he doe not

Bizarre power grabs by the judicial branch notwithstanding.

Not appealing the decission is the government saying.the judge is right. No power grab to see. Just Trump unable to admit his own failures.

But, that is also a bizarre statement by Trump

Has he, as of yet, said something that wasn't?

A pile of shit by any other name would smell as a pile of shit.

And since he is on record wanting to ban Muslims for being Muslims, he may not be able to EO any legal ban, since his intentions are a matter of public record.

Trump supporters may fall for the "but it doesn't day muslim" crap, but judges usually have a working brain and don't.

Best regards
Thomas

Wacker1000 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

And it still does not answer questions: such as why are we banning people from countries that have not produced terrorists attacks against the US but we still welcome Egyptians and Saudis and Jordanians and Emiratis...from countries that had citizens partake in 9/11 and/or have ties to the Trump organization?

Because those countries are particularly dysfunctional and have no clue who is holding their passports. If it truly was a "Muslim ban" there would be more countries on the list.

Absolutely BS. Iran is a fully functional country. They are instrumental in fights against ISIS as they were instrumental in fight against Taliban.

They have not been directly involved with any terrorist attack against US citizens.

You might want to check your facts when you decide to post something on internet so you don't embarrass yourself. Typical trump voters loud and uneducated.

alixman984 wrote:

You might want to check your facts when you decide to post something on internet so you don't embarrass yourself. Typical trump voters loud and uneducated.

Oh the irony of what you wrote....but then again that is why we have quote buttons!

I don't jump on media bandwagons and eat the (largely liberal) BS they feed us by the spoonful but who says I voted for Trump?