Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 541 of 993 (799270)
02-08-2017 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Theodoric
02-07-2017 10:12 PM


Re: Faiths lies and attacks
Are any of the Admins going to do anything about Faiths constant lies and attacks on people who disagree with her?
I'm using the way that Faith behaves in this thread, as a kind of barometer on the way that core Trump supporters are thinking.
Yes, I know she is only one person. But other indicators seem to suggest that what we are seeing here is similar enough to what other core supporters are saying.
I think it is useful to have this kind of "barometer".

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2017 10:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 542 of 993 (799271)
02-08-2017 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by bluegenes
02-08-2017 5:05 PM


Re: Let's have apostate immigration
That doesn't make them "entirely blameless"
This discussion takes place within a context. That context was the kinds of crimes and associations that would warrant immediate exclusion from the visa or refugee acceptance process to the United States of America.
If you want to strip it of the context of this discussion, then I would be surprised if you could find anybody who is 'entirely blameless'.
you don't need to shift from "almost all" to "most".
It's not a shift of position, just a change of wording to avoid repetition, using different words in your argument is something you are surely used to when using English. "Almost all" Muslims, is as a matter fact 'most' Muslims. You seem to be looking for reasons to be pedantic, and it is utterly needless for the purposes of this debate.
If around 1/3 do believe that ex-Muslims should be put to death, that alone would give any western country reason for heavy vetting on immigration.
And of course, heavy vetting is already in place, and is not the issue that is being complained about in the 'wacko liberal response'.
People can be both oppressors and oppressed. I was suggesting taking in those who don't support the oppressive ideology, rather than importing those who do.
You can try - but it would be a problem if the details of your policy resulted in accepting visas of conservative Jews, who support oppressing women, Muslims and even other Jews, and Christians who support oppressing a variety of people. Hindus, Russians, and also atheists too, who may support oppressing groups in their own ways. That's when you've moved clearly into the religious discrimination territory.
And if your policy does cover all of this, you might run into all sorts of other issues such as the amount of vetting required and the amount of people subject to this scrutiny becomes so onerous so as to be impractical and would likely have an impact on the economy that far outweighs the problems you were trying to overcome.
One of the key problems we face with religious violence is education and culture. We can't do much about this, unless those people are within our sovereign jurisdiction.
I do, despite your efforts to import an ideology that wouldn't allow me to.
I make no such efforts. I do however, want to help people fleeing warzones, even if I think they're social ideas and cultural notions are misguided or even wicked. I do want to show them an alternative way of living. Preferably I'd rather not have destabilized the region resulting in a huge amount of people fleeing, but we are where we are.
I'd sooner help religious conservatives, even ultra-conservatives, live - than put their lives in mortal danger - because of political, cultural and philosophical disagreements and differences of opinion about how best to live.
I'd face legal challenges for having been born in the wrong country to be President, interestingly, considering the 1965 act.
The INA doesn't say anything about being President. That's covered in the document that takes primacy over any law passed in the 60s - except the three amendments to that document passed in that time, which are irrelevant to this question.
And I'm sure that you're right on that. I might stand a good chance in France, though.
When people make cases to French courts over Presidential actions you hypothetically take in France, you can bring it up then, I suppose.
I think what I started on was the point that the freedom of religion challenge to Trump is weak, but you may well agree with that.
More than 'weak', you argued it could backfire in some fashion:
quote:
The problem for your courts is getting Trump without implicating his predecessors.
quote:
If religious discrimination is unconstitutional, and that's the argument against Trump, have these judges thought it through?
it isn't a simple case of 'religious discrimination is unconstitutional', it is only unconstitutional if it is done with insufficient reason. That is, because of a threat to other rights that take priority over religious ones.
I don't know if you got the impression that I was arguing in favour of Trump's directive as a good thing, but I wasn't.
I just don't get your argument as to why the religious discrimination angle is problematic. My argument as to its weakness is because it doesn't de jure discriminate against Muslims and contains a disclaimer regarding 'as long as it is lawfully done'. Yours seems to be more on the grounds 'but we do discriminate against people'.
But this doesn't hold water, it isn't just discrimination that is the strict issue, it's the nature and reasons for the discrimination. It is fine to imprison someone for sacrificing a human life to their blood god - this is well established in US law regarding balancing life and freedom. Just as there are constraints on the freedom of speech (such as causing panic with the the old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre, or incitement to violence).
You haven't commented on this, which is in fact my main counterargument to your initial argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by bluegenes, posted 02-08-2017 5:05 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by bluegenes, posted 02-09-2017 7:29 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 543 of 993 (799272)
02-08-2017 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by bluegenes
02-08-2017 4:32 PM


sovereignty
As for the main topic, I agree with you on some things. Like, for example, that sovereign governments should be able to deny entry to anyone they want to for whatever reason.
Sovereign governments CAN deny entry to anyone they want for whatever reason. Pretty much by definition.
The issue here is that Donald Trump is not a sovereign government. He is the head of a single branch of a government. And that sovereign government has instituted rules regulating what they and their agents can do with regards to accessing the United States.
In summary - the President can only act within the powers he has through Congress, and whether or not he is so doing is decided by the judiciary. A rewrite of the INA, an amendment to the Constitution could both give him the power to exclude Muslims or gays or people that don't like Trump's hair - as long as the Judiciary declares it kosher given the state of the laws at that time.
In short - the United States of America doesn't presently will the exclusion of gays or Muslims or Hindus or women or Chinese people.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by bluegenes, posted 02-08-2017 4:32 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 544 of 993 (799273)
02-08-2017 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by bluegenes
02-08-2017 4:32 PM


Re: The true Faith
Faith writes:
No comment on the topic?
I am on the topic.
No, the person, the poster, is not the topic.
I'm pointing out, in my own sweet way, that you have much more in common with people from the conservative religious cultures that you want to ban from entry than most people in this thread.
Again, I, the poster, is not the topic. Also, that is a lie. Perhaps you don't know it is a lie but you should if you've followed anything I've said about Islam. It is false to compare Christianity with Islam in any way at all, even if there are superficial similarities. The religions are the exact opposite of each other in just about every way.
Faith writes:
Just lies about me personally?
What lies? You know how to quote, so why not do it?
See above. Basically what you are suggesting is that I move to a country where I would be subjugated, subjected to violence and probably death. "Lie" may not be quite the right word for such a hateful suggestion. Of course I don't believe you had that in mind but you should have because that's the likely thing that would happen.
Faith writes:
Nothing to say about the video I posted perhaps, or any of the other references I gave in that same post?
The guy making the video asks the wrong question. He should be asking why, if the Iraqi army had recently invaded America and killed a lot of people, might it be difficult for Iraqi soldiers to walk around an American town freely in the aftermath without being lynched.
For the sake of answering that ridiculous idea I wish he had asked it in a way to clarify that too. But I suspect he KNEW the reason and it had nothing to do with anything that actually happened, it's about the ideology of jihad and he knew it. The problem is that you like so many others know nothing about the history of Islam so you project western attitudes on them. Except for their proclivity for beheading people they object to of course.
Faith writes:
I think you really should go visit that Iraqi town the Marine was talking about. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
I have walked around many Arabic towns, surrounded by Muslims, and I'm fine. But, unlike the marines, I was unarmed, and hadn't been involved in killing whole swathes of the local population.
I'm sure there are different towns in different parts of the Middle East and they differ from each other in their proclivity to violence against Americans. But I should have made it clear he's an ex-Marine who stayed in Iraq as a contractor. I saw a headline somewhere earlier that said he's been evacuated from the country because of death threats since the video. And the question he asked was how an AMERICAN would be treated, not a Marine.
BG writes:
As for the main topic, I agree with you on some things. Like, for example, that sovereign governments should be able to deny entry to anyone they want to for whatever reason.
Hooray.
However, if members of the population disagree, they've every right to campaign for change.
That's fine with me, as long as it is done legally, and as long their "campaign" doesn't involve beating people up and breaking into buildings and setting fires.
I also think that the argument about Trump's directive being unconstitutional on the freedom of religion basis is probably wrong, but then I'm no expert on American law.
You're right, it's wrong, and thanks.
I also think his ban is clumsy. I'd be much more interested if he actually did try to do what he said he would while campaigning, and temporarily ban all Muslims, not because I think that's a good idea, but because it would be interesting to see what happened then, constitutionally speaking.
I don't have an opinion. I assumed he was doing whatever he COULD do to fulfill his promise.
If he did try it, it wouldn't last for long, for practical reasons. Remember, America does a hell of a lot of trade with the Muslim world, and Trump knows this, and he will not want to damage the U.S. economy.
I don't know.
The rather futile gesture he has made may just be to please his voters, and you should be aware, Faith, that he may not really be interested in doing what you really want, just appearing to do something.
I've had time to be convinced the man is sincere.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by bluegenes, posted 02-08-2017 4:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by bluegenes, posted 02-09-2017 9:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 545 of 993 (799274)
02-08-2017 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Modulous
02-08-2017 6:57 PM


Re: sovereignty
Sovereign governments CAN deny entry to anyone they want for whatever reason. Pretty much by definition.
The issue here is that Donald Trump is not a sovereign government. He is the head of a single branch of a government. And that sovereign government has instituted rules regulating what they and their agents can do with regards to accessing the United States.
In summary - the President can only act within the powers he has through Congress, and whether or not he is so doing is decided by the judiciary. A rewrite of the INA, an amendment to the Constitution could both give him the power to exclude Muslims or gays or people that don't like Trump's hair - as long as the Judiciary declares it kosher given the state of the laws at that time.
In short - the United States of America doesn't presently will the exclusion of gays or Muslims or Hindus or women or Chinese people.
Trump was acting under a law that is about as simple and clear as it is possible to get, that gives the President, nobody else, the President alone, the power to restrict the entry of any alien or aliens as he -- he and only he -- determines the need for the sake of national security.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2017 6:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2017 7:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 556 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2017 12:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 546 of 993 (799276)
02-08-2017 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by Faith
02-08-2017 7:21 PM


Re: sovereignty
Trump was acting under a law that is about as simple and clear as it is possible to get, that gives the President, nobody else, the President alone, the power to restrict the entry of any alien or aliens as he -- he and only he -- determines the need for the sake of national security.
That's basically what I said: The President has the power, but it is limited by the Constitution and the Legislature (for example INA 1965) and the interpretation of those limits is arbitrated by the Judiciary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:40 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 547 of 993 (799277)
02-08-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by Modulous
02-08-2017 7:35 PM


Re: sovereignty
That's basically what I said: The President has the power, but it is limited by the Constitution and the Legislature (for example INA 1965) and the interpretation of those limits is arbitrated by the Judiciary.
In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law; there is no further input required. There is no further limit to be considered. The law says the President has the power, and that's it. No other input is required, and the attempts to interfere with his action are NOT Constitutional, they are illegal, serving only the narrow political interests of Leftist ideology.
There is nothing to discuss about this. The law is simple and clear and all the interference is nothing but political obstruction,
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2017 7:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2017 7:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 553 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2017 10:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 548 of 993 (799278)
02-08-2017 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Faith
02-08-2017 7:40 PM


Re: sovereignty
In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law
Well, yes.
there is no further input required
This is, true. But further input can in fact occur. The Judiciary exists to check and balance the actions of the legislature. It is possible for the legislature to enact a law that is unlawful - for instance if it turned out to be unconstitutional.
The law says the President has the power, and that's it.
In your opinion he has the power to do what he has done. Other people disagree. And its the Judiciary's role to arbitrate this disagreement and make a decision.
This is the same system that Obama - and every President - existed under, and the courts did the same to one of Obama's immigration laws too.
No other input is required, and the attempts to interfere with his action are NOT Constitutional, they are illegal, serving only the narrow political interests of Leftist ideology.
It is illegal to seek redress? It is illegal to appeal to the courts? It is unconstitutional to ask a judge for injunctive relief? What nonsense are you trying to pull here? Please cite your legal justification for your statement.
The law is simple and clear
Which law?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 549 of 993 (799279)
02-08-2017 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by Modulous
02-08-2017 7:46 PM


Re: sovereignty
Obama acted under the same law concerning the same nations. Objecting to Trump's action is just disgusting political obstructionism and all the hairsplitting talk talk talk about this that and the other only serves the same purpose. The law is clear. If the judiciary did not override it for Obama, to do so for Trump is just proof of their corruption and the demise of this nation if you ask me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2017 7:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2017 8:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 550 of 993 (799280)
02-08-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
02-08-2017 7:58 PM


Re: sovereignty
Obama acted under the same law concerning the same nations.
Sure, but the acts were different. Obama's action did not interfere, for example, with student visas. Trump's does. Obama's action didn't cover all people just BECAUSE they were from Iraq.
The law is clear.
Is it?
quote:
(a) Per country level
(1) Nondiscrimination
(A)
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.


(B)
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.



(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants
Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.




(3) Exception if additional visas available
If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.




(4) Special rules for spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens
(A) 75 percent of 2nd preference set-aside for spouses and children not subject to per country limitation
(i) In general
Of the visa numbers made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants described in section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title in any fiscal year, 75 percent of the 2—A floor (as defined in clause (ii)) shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2).




(ii) 2—A floor defined
In this paragraph, the term 2—A floor means, for a fiscal year, 77 percent of the total number of visas made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants described in section 1153(a)(2) of this title in the fiscal year.





(B) Treatment of remaining 25 percent for countries subject to subsection (e)
(i) In general
Of the visa numbers made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants described in section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title in any fiscal year, the remaining 25 percent of the 2—A floor shall be available in the case of a state or area that is subject to subsection (e) only to the extent that the total number of visas issued in accordance with subparagraph (A) to natives of the foreign state or area is less than the subsection (e) ceiling (as defined in clause (ii)).




(ii) Subsection (e) ceiling defined
In clause (i), the term subsection (e) ceiling means, for a foreign state or dependent area, 77 percent of the maximum number of visas that may be made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants who are natives of the state or area under section 1153(a)(2) of this title consistent with subsection (e).





(C) Treatment of unmarried sons and daughters in countries subject to subsection (e)In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, the number of immigrant visas that may be made available to natives of the state or area under section 1153(a)(2)(B) of this title may not exceed
(i)
23 percent of the maximum number of visas that may be made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants of the state or area described in section 1153(a)(2) of this title consistent with subsection (e), or


(ii)
the number (if any) by which the maximum number of visas that may be made available under section 1153(a) of this title to immigrants of the state or area described in section 1153(a)(2) of this title consistent with subsection (e) exceeds the number of visas issued under section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title,


whichever is greater.


(D) Limiting pass down for certain countries subject to subsection (e)
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(a)(2) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(a)(2) of this title consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 1153(a) of this title under subsection (e)(2) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of such section.





(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants
(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per country limitation if additional visas available
If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 1153(b) of this title for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.




(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to subsection (e)
In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 1153(b) of this title exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 1153(b) of this title consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 1153(b) of this title.






quote:
(b) Rules for chargeability
Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) when approved by the Secretary of State. All other inhabited lands shall be attributed to a foreign state specified by the Secretary of State. For the purposes of this chapter the foreign state to which an immigrant is chargeable shall be determined by birth within such foreign state except that (1) an alien child, when accompanied by or following to join his alien parent or parents, may be charged to the foreign state of either parent if such parent has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa, if necessary to prevent the separation of the child from the parent or parents, and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such parent has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (2) if an alien is chargeable to a different foreign state from that of his spouse, the foreign state to which such alien is chargeable may, if necessary to prevent the separation of husband and wife, be determined by the foreign state of the spouse he is accompanying or following to join, if such spouse has received or would be qualified for an immigrant visa and if immigration charged to the foreign state to which such spouse has been or would be chargeable has not reached a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) for that fiscal year; (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien’s birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.




(c) Chargeability for dependent areas
Any immigrant born in a colony or other component or dependent area of a foreign state overseas from the foreign state, other than an alien described in section 1151(b) of this title, shall be chargeable for the purpose of the limitation set forth in subsection (a), to the foreign state.




(d) Changes in territory
In the case of any change in the territorial limits of foreign states, the Secretary of State shall, upon recognition of such change issue appropriate instructions to all diplomatic and consular offices.




(e) Special rules for countries at ceilingIf it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 1153 of this title) in a manner so that
(1)
the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 1153(a) of this title to the visa numbers made available under section 1153(b) of this title is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 1151(c) of this title to such level under " title="section 1151(d) of this title">section 1151(d) of this title;


(2)
except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 1153(a) of this title is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 1153(a) of this title, and


(3)
except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 1153(b) of this title is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 1153(b) of this title.


Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 1153(a) or 1153(b) of this title if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 1153(b) or 1153(a) of this title, respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 1153(a)(2)(A) of this title pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).

That's section 1152. The full law is 400 pages long.
You keep saying it is clear, but you don't explain how it is clear, what part of the law you think is clear, and why it is clear 1152 can be disregarded. There are arguments, but again, the law IS clear that the only way to settle those arguments is through the courts. This is not illegal, it is not unlawful
Objecting to Trump's action is just disgusting political obstructionism
I could argue that that this is in fact the Judiciary's job, again. But I could also point to all the political obstructionism that went on under Obama - can you at least verify you strongly objected when Obama's executive order on immigration was obstructed using the same processes?
If the judiciary did not override it for Obama, to do so for Trump is just proof of their corruption and the demise of this nation if you ask me.
Did anyone bring a case to the Judiciary for Obama's Order, which was to re-vet people who had entered on a specific subset of categories with the consequence that processing existing visas was slowed down?
They were different Orders. One suspends all entry on all visas for seven nations. The other slowed down processing of some visas for one nation. If Obama had issued the same order, you'd have some semblance of a point at least. But he didn't - they were very different.
Forbes summarises thusly:
quote:
Today’s immigration laws derive from the landmark 1965 immigration code that laid to rest the barriers on national origins that had bedeviled the country’s immigration policy from 1924. For fifty years since 1965, no President has challenged the iron rule that the considerations for letting in immigrants have had to focus on issues like family reunification, skills, and so forth — and not revert to the national origins grounds of 1924-1965. The courts may well teach Trump that to erect the first ever wall on discriminatory grounds under the 1965 structure, he has to first enact a change in the statutes by going to Congress.
Trump points to a 1952 law that allows the president to suspend the entry of any class of aliens that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States. That Cold War provision represents the zenith of Presidential power to act discriminatorily as to immigration. It may well have been aimed to create barriers to dangerous persons from Communist bloc nations.
However, by 1965, President Lyndon Johnson, as part of the general reform program of the Great Society, had supplanted the earlier structure. The cornerstone of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act became 8 U.S.C. 1152. This provides that no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. This is comprehensive, barring discrimination precisely on the grounds in Trump’s order — nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. Trump has singled out seven Muslim-majority nations, from well-known Iran, Syria and Libya, to Somalia and Sudan, and to the one country that so many American troops died (often alongside native supporters) to hold together, Iraq.
The irony accumulates when looking at the other major nondiscrimination provision of the immigration law. There are employer sanctions to keep employers from luring undocumented foreign migrants. But, the immigration law does not aim for these sanctions to keep green card immigrants out of work. So there is a Prohibition of discrimination based on national origin or citizenship (8 USC sec, 1824b(a)) It forbids employers to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s national origin.
Show me how Obama's Executive Order could be criticized on the same grounds.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 551 of 993 (799281)
02-08-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
02-08-2017 11:54 AM


Re: The new fascism
Soros is a billionaire Jew, no? One that you constantly accuse of paying people to do stuff that amounts to a conspiracy. Hence his 'Jew-gold'. Believing a specific Jew to be involved in conspiracies does not make anyone an anti-Semite. Using that belief to justify hatred against ALL Jews would. Dr A did not accuse you of the latter only the former. In other words, he didn't imply you are an anti-Semite, just a conspiracy loon.
The reason I find it so funny is that you only believe the half of the conspiracy that is against you. The Jew-spiracy holds that wealthy Jews control and command both sides of politics. But that doesn't suit your point of view, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 11:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by jar, posted 02-08-2017 9:21 PM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 11:48 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 552 of 993 (799282)
02-08-2017 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Riggamortis
02-08-2017 8:48 PM


Re: The new fascism
And it is still a fact the George Soros was only born in 1930.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Riggamortis, posted 02-08-2017 8:48 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 553 of 993 (799290)
02-08-2017 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Faith
02-08-2017 7:40 PM


Re: sovereignty
In the case of an established written law, it has already been through whatever input is legally required for a law to become law;
That is not sufficient to tell us whether Trump's order is constitutional. Whether or not an application of a law is constitutional depends on the circumstances of the action taken under the law. It is certainly possible for some actions under the law to be constitutional while others are not. In particular, the argument here is that at least for some folks, (i.e. green card holders and folks returning to the country on a visa), that due process is required.
Unless that specific issue has been litigated, then this particular application of the law has not been vetted. In general, with the exception of things like the first amendment, Courts do not have the jurisdiction to examine hypothetical constitutional violations.
So no matter how long a law has been on the books, it is possible to enforce that law in ways that are unconstitutional.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 7:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 11:57 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 554 of 993 (799294)
02-08-2017 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Riggamortis
02-08-2017 8:48 PM


Re: The new fascism
Soros is a billionaire Jew, no? One that you constantly accuse of paying people to do stuff that amounts to a conspiracy. Hence his 'Jew-gold'. Believing a specific Jew to be involved in conspiracies does not make anyone an anti-Semite. Using that belief to justify hatred against ALL Jews would. Dr A did not accuse you of the latter only the former. In other words, he didn't imply you are an anti-Semite, just a conspiracy loon.
The reason I find it so funny is that you only believe the half of the conspiracy that is against you. The Jew-spiracy holds that wealthy Jews control and command both sides of politics. But that doesn't suit your point of view, does it?
Soros is well known among conservatives to be funding globalist and leftist politics. This has nothing to do with typical conspiracies about the Jews, this is specifically about Soros.
What made the remark an accusation of anti-Semitism was that vulgar phrase: "Jew Gold."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Riggamortis, posted 02-08-2017 8:48 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 555 of 993 (799295)
02-08-2017 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by NoNukes
02-08-2017 10:34 PM


Re: sovereignty
If it's just a matter of resolving the status of green card and visa holders why is it taking so long?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2017 10:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2017 12:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 561 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2017 2:17 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024