Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Refugees/Citizens of Muslim Countries Barred


Claire.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, hatecraft said:

Doesn't matter.  Some activist judge will make up a reason to block it. 

For 'legal reasons'? God, I hate it when judges do that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

For 'legal reasons'? God, I hate it when judges do that!

Lets kill all the lawyers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Lets kill all the lawyers

While it's a popular sentiment, it's entirely ill conceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

While it's a popular sentiment, it's entirely ill conceived.

I agree

Quote

The words, ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ were not spoken by a disgruntled litigant (or even by Henry VI’s press secretary). They were uttered by the conspirators in Cade’s Rebellion, whoplanned to overthrow the English government, destroy the ancient rights of English men and women, [as such “rights” were available to women at that time], and establish a virtual dictatorship.

41arkidei-l_sl500_aa240_.jpg Through the rebels’ threat, Shakespeare reminds the groundlings that lawyers, as protectors of that system of ordered liberty, are as much an obstacle to a rebellion that would curtail liberty as any garrisoned castle. Thus, Cade’s path to oppression leads inevitably over their bodies…”. — John J. Curtin, Jr., Esq., President, American Bar Association, published in the ABA Journal, September, 1990.

https://blogs.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/shakespeare-and-lawyers/

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, hatecraft said:

Doesn't matter.  Some activist judge will make up a reason to block it. 

It's called the Constitution, it's what we take oaths to defend.    We should all defend the Constitution.   You don't need no Bible or bureaucrat or ceremony to make it count.

If Trump left any doubt in my mind whether he was a good or a bad President, this "issue" eliminates all doubt.   Indeed there is no political creature more disgusting than an authoritarian.   This new E.O. again stinks to the ceiling of fascist authoritarianism.   I think it separates the men from the boys in exposing real xenophobia and racism.   I don't chase liberal journalists down every "racist" hole they dig, and most of them aren't worth taking seriously, but this prohibition crosses the line.

I was actually hoping the damage caused by this horror would bite Trump in the ass so hard he'd never be foolish enough to try for a Ban 3.0.   But eviscerating it before it even stands up works even better!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution only protects the right of unfettered entry to the United States by US citizens...not non-citizens. The law is pretty specific actually. I suspect this issue will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Take a look here: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html

Here's the pertinent paragraph (seems rather straight forward):

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2017 at 7:17 PM, Yamato said:

Pumping the worst stories on the internet one can find about a group one loves to demonize; sharing it with others as the basis for them to figure out what to think?   That's already a virus; it's already messing with people. 

A group one "loves to demonize"?  You'd enjoy a dinner with the Hawaii federal bencher that made up a stay out of whole cloth.  The intelligence agencies gave the former president a list of countries from which they felt it was dangerous to allow immigration because proper vetting was impossible due to the situation's there.  The new president uses the same list for the same reason and political hacks in robes make up excuses to slap him down.  I don't imagine that a "terrorist" will necessarily rush here from one of thopse nations and kill people this afternoon.  No one KNOWS whether they will.  It's a prudent action to try to tighten vetting procedures.  If an attack DOES occur and can be irrefutably linked to the action of a judge, all hell should break loose against those who supported this action of his.  Uh, that'd be enlightened and oh so fair minded people like yourself.  Is the death and mayhem caused by fundamental Islam "messing with people"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, and then said:

If an attack DOES occur and can be irrefutably linked to the action of a judge, all hell should break loose against those who supported this action of his.  

If that happens, the MSM won't bother reporting it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

It's called the Constitution, it's what we take oaths to defend.    We should all defend the Constitution.   You don't need no Bible or bureaucrat or ceremony to make it count.

If Trump left any doubt in my mind whether he was a good or a bad President, this "issue" eliminates all doubt.   Indeed there is no political creature more disgusting than an authoritarian.   This new E.O. again stinks to the ceiling of fascist authoritarianism.   I think it separates the men from the boys in exposing real xenophobia and racism.   I don't chase liberal journalists down every "racist" hole they dig, and most of them aren't worth taking seriously, but this prohibition crosses the line.

I was actually hoping the damage caused by this horror would bite Trump in the ass so hard he'd never be foolish enough to try for a Ban 3.0.   But eviscerating it before it even stands up works even better!

The constitution applies to the whole world?

When the blood spills, and I promise you it will. It will be on your sides hands. Actually the sickest part of all this is you will then just go into Europe's mode of denial and pretend it isn't even happening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

The constitution applies to the whole world?

When the blood spills, and I promise you it will. It will be on your sides hands. Actually the sickest part of all this is you will then just go into Europe's mode of denial and pretend it isn't even happening.  

When, and if blood spills, it's on Trump.  The benchmark was zero.  Zero deaths from these citizens.  Just as many will argue that alienating entire countries will cause someone to choose the path of radicalization.  What keeps getting lost in this conversation is the fact that this is not just refugees.  This is ALL TRAVELERS.  This is people going on vacation, people visiting their families, people attending sporting competitions, people attending college.  He placed time limits on the "ban", and honestly, when all of this legal stuff is over, his time limits that were in place will nearly be up...so what's really the point then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hatecraft said:

Doesn't matter.  Some activist judge will make up a reason to block it. 

True.  It's time for him to allow it to proceed slowly through the courts where it will certainly be defeated.  These two rulings don't attack the E.O.s on legal criteria.  There is nothing to wait for regarding the new vetting rules.  The new standards should be implemented and any state that refuses, for whatever reason, should be defunded to the extent possible.  We are a nation of LAWS, not judge's whim.  That is a dangerous road to tread.  Dangerous for America's future respect for executive power, dangerous for the immigrants themselves.  Only a fool thinks that a major attack will not happen here.  When it occurs, if the post-mortem forensics prove it came across our borders, especially the southern border, we'll have a nasty mess on our hands.  The so-called "war" against brown people will finally be a fact.  When a nation of laws loses respect for everything but their narrow, political agenda, the country as we have known it cannot continue.  Once we cut loose from our moorings we will drift onto the rocks and history's greatest experiment in freedom will pass from the world.  And we will have done it to ourselves.

ETA:  The nation is at a turning point.  About half of us want change from the agenda of the Left.  The Left, loosely, want to open our country to anyone in any numbers and they refuse to even acknowledge the events globally that prove the dangers inherent in fundamentalist Islam.  We will either fight for freedom or surrender it.  The next time an Islamic fundy kills multiple citizens here, I am going to blame those HERE that are complicit in the act.  Many of those on the Left will make excuses for the actions of the killers and blame anything BUT the true cause.  If the butcher's bill is high enough, killing is going to begin among Americans who are frustrated and extremely angry about the insanity we attempted to tame with the last election.  A wise man penned these words a long time ago and they are quite appropriate today.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  

Edited by and then
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and then said:

We are a nation of LAWS, not judge's whim.

Correction: We are a nation of LAWS, not presidents' whims.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lilly said:

The Constitution only protects the right of unfettered entry to the United States by US citizens...not non-citizens. The law is pretty specific actually. I suspect this issue will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Take a look here: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html

Here's the pertinent paragraph (seems rather straight forward):

It's not that straightforward Lilly.

In 1965 President Johnson signed an amendment to the 1952 law, which, among other things, stipulated that immigrants could not be denied a visa because of their race, sex, nationality or place of birth. "For over four decades, the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system," Johnson said when he signed the law  — and some lawyers today contend that if Congress restricted the president's ability to block immigration based on national origins in 1965, then Trump's executive order must be illegal.

Admittedly, the new law did not create an open door, nor did it remove the clause you quoted that allows the president to deny anyone entry under special circumstances.  However, the only justification for a hastily issued, fact-bare order, would be an emergency (such as the 9/11 attacks, for example). There is, currently, no such emergency, and without it, Trump lacks the power and authority to unilaterally prevent the movement of anyone following legal channels of entry.

Lawyers also argue that Trump's travel ban violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it is based on animus toward Muslims. The fact that the Trump administration has made several attempts to say that the ban is not a Muslim ban, does not save it — because bottom line: Trump's biggest constitutional problem is that the order is in fact fueled by prejudice, and pretty much everyone, including the courts, knows it.

Edit - By the way, the Immigration and Nationality Act, was first passed in 1952 when we were in the midst of the Cold War and Red Scare. President Truman vetoed the law, denouncing it for "substituting totalitarian vengeance for democratic justice." It would be more appropriate, he stated, to "stretch out a helping hand" to those living under communism, than to worry about protecting the US from them. I've no doubt he'd say the same thing today.

Edited by Claire.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

When, and if blood spills, it's on Trump.  The benchmark was zero.  Zero deaths from these citizens.  Just as many will argue that alienating entire countries will cause someone to choose the path of radicalization.  What keeps getting lost in this conversation is the fact that this is not just refugees.  This is ALL TRAVELERS.  This is people going on vacation, people visiting their families, people attending sporting competitions, people attending college.  He placed time limits on the "ban", and honestly, when all of this legal stuff is over, his time limits that were in place will nearly be up...so what's really the point then?

Right its on Trump. You want to really blame people for this situation, blame Bush and 0bama for their relentless illegal wars they waged slaughtering millions of innocents. Men who propped up terrorists with our money. The same people who made these refugees. Trumps just trying to stop the backlash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Claire. said:

 because bottom line: Trump's biggest constitutional problem is that the order is in fact fueled by prejudice, and pretty much everyone, including the courts, knows it.

 

Fueled by prejudice, or fueled by the risk that certain nations don't offer sufficient vetting to ensure terrorist supporters of Islamic Jihadism don't enter our nation?

This is the question that will be answered when all this arrives at the Supreme Court.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Claire. said:

— because bottom line: Trump's biggest constitutional problem is that the order is in fact fueled by prejudice, and pretty much everyone, including the courts, knows it.

 

.

that is a highly subjective assertion - and pretty much everyone does not know it ---

people who are not in denial know that there is a '''problem''' with what could be called
a faction within Islam - but the boundaries of that faction are in reality fairly unclear -

there is also a matter of why some countries (with a muslim majority) might be more motivated
than others to seek revenge ... and get into the US for terrorism purposes.... and that is down to
Bush and Obama not Trump... 

time for the Wesley Clarke video again as a reminder why certain countries might seek revenge..
and be on the temporary list until more stringent vetting is properly in place...
 

  

12 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Right its on Trump. You want to really blame people for this situation, blame Bush and 0bama for their relentless illegal wars they waged slaughtering millions of innocents. Men who propped up terrorists with our money. The same people who made these refugees. Trumps just trying to stop the backlash.

.

exactly.... well said...

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Right its on Trump. You want to really blame people for this situation, blame Bush and 0bama for their relentless illegal wars they waged slaughtering millions of innocents. Men who propped up terrorists with our money. The same people who made these refugees. Trumps just trying to stop the backlash.

What illegal war? The war that Trump initially supported? The same war that Pence not only strongly supported but also co-sponsored and voted in favor of the bill authorizing it? That war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Right its on Trump. You want to really blame people for this situation, blame Bush and 0bama for their relentless illegal wars they waged slaughtering millions of innocents. Men who propped up terrorists with our money. The same people who made these refugees. Trumps just trying to stop the backlash.

As I said, this goes far beyond refugees.  I am quite sure limiting, or even eliminating refugee visa's would be well within his legal power.  Many people would still disagree with it, but I think he would win that battle.  But that is not what he is attempting to do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Claire. said:

What illegal war? The war that Trump initially supported? The same war that Pence not only strongly supported but also co-sponsored and voted in favor of the bill authorizing it? That war?

.

try and skirt around it as much as you want ---

the fact is the buck stops at Bush and Obama.... Bush for Iraq and Obama for Libya and Syria -

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Fueled by prejudice, or fueled by the risk that certain nations don't offer sufficient vetting to ensure terrorist supporters of Islamic Jihadism don't enter our nation?

By prejudice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bee said:

.your own prejudice motivates you to say that...

Trumps words and actions do. But thanks anyway for the psych evaluation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Claire. said:

By prejudice.

And that will need to be proven. Oh, and if it can be demonstrated that this is prejudice against Islamic Terrorism (not the entire religion of Islam) then I highly suspect I can predict the ruling.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.