Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine, Jan 29, 2017.
I don't see how that is relevant as Turkey is not one of the banned countries.
Well the countries the Donald has investments in were not on the list.
It's very relevant, as it tends to prove it's not a Muslim ban. If it were, more than the 7 nations identified by the previous administration would be affected. Also, as stated in #59, Christians from those regions are affected as well.
prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country ofnationality
All faiths are subject to the same terms and conditions of the EO. Being Christian is not an automatic exemption. The refugee clause merely prioritizes claims of religious persecution made by minority religions. That, in and of itself does not satisfy the burden of proof though.
It satisfied the burden of proof enough to have a federal judge (a George W Bush appointee!) rule the ban unconstitutional.
Fair enough, but other than the initial confusion at roll out, I'm just not seeing a significant difference in the way the Executive Order is written and the way it was intended to be executed. The order seeks to temporarily suspend travel to certain individuals based on nationality alone, not religion and that's what was being done. It's clearly not a Muslim ban, as citizens of other predominantly Muslim countries were free to come and go as they please. It only affected those nations identified as countries of concern by the previous administration.
The credibility of a George W, appointee aside, perhaps we should do away with the presidency altogether and just let lawyers and judges run the country. After all, everyone knows lawyers and judges never make bad decisions...
Ah, the nuclear option. Checks and balances, gotta watch the video in the YouTube thread
The constitution only applies to citizens unless things have changed somehow in that regard for which it doesn't legally apply towards non citizens of this country, so this is something that must be new maybe that I wasn't aware of?
It's always applied to noncitizens, albeit indirectly, because it dictates what Congress can do, what the President can do, what the Supreme Court can do and what the states can do.
I think that there's something either on YouTube or at least online that can explain the basics of Constitutional law.
It's the bill of rights, 5th and14th amendments that apply. Constutionally there are no protections for denial of entry.
True, but the main body of the Constitution states exactly what the three rings of government can and cannot do (the "three-ring circus" of the United States.)
Then I'd go back to the point I made earlier in the thread that the odds of getting killed by a terrorist attack are so minute compared to that of by an automobile accident. If you worry about an untimely death, drive less and stop drinking soda.
Also, I recommend reading these articles by the Cato Institute. (Emphasis mine.)
It is stupid to cause this much chaos and provoke antipathy from both domestic and overseas and raise the anti-America sentiment and give terrorists more recruiting tools. It is A VERY BAD POLICY which was executed VERY POORLY by a rookie politician whose primary concern is to cater to his fanatic base.
Many experts are saying that this travel ban is actually counter-productive, that it makes us less safe.
Hundreds of U.S. diplomats signal dissent over travel ban
Of course it has... My Irish buddy and his family who has planned to return here on vacation...they travel a lot....and now have to turn in their passports to be reviewed prior to getting their visas... And have not been told which countries might preclude them from entry.
World travelers have had this concern before
.....our Saudi friends, won't let folks who have an Israel stamp in...so they have two passports....
Drumpf lost another round in court about his travel ban. The 9th District Court Justices "said" that the states of Washington and Minnesota would suffer harm under the ban while Drumpf & Co. wouldn't suffer as much, if at all.
Drumpf tweeted "See you in court."
I cannot roll my eyes enough to express my feelings about the "beloved" president.
Not just lost on the ban. Got pulverized. 3 to 0 agreed to ban the ban!
It is not a Muslim ban, it is not a ban...
Nope it isn't, not anymore.
He is already trying to shut down the fourth estate....and has had issues with the third branch for decades...
The judge is biased against me... I am trying to build a wall... But he was born in mexico.... That doesn't matter, I am trying to build a wall...
There's a huge protest going on in Phoenix because a lady who has been living in the US illegally for twenty years (no paperwork) was sent back to Mexico, leaving behind a husband and two children. The only reason that she was at the INS office was for her annual check-in. The only time that she was arrested was during a raid where she worked, and that was because her documentation didn't match. Otherwise, she "kept her nose clean" on all fronts.
I sincerely hope that Drumpf & Co. end up having their homes and places of business raided by INS, losing most of their staff plus the First Lady to deportation.
Trump’s pro-amnesty immigration remarks in a 2013 Family Leadership Summit
TRUMP : "Now, when it comes to immigration, you have to do the right thing. In your own heart, you're dealing with lives, you're dealing with human beings, you have to do the right thing."
Separate names with a comma.