Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress’s powers in this area are plenary, and the president’s powers are as broad as the Congress chooses to give him.
Odd you never used this to defend Obama's actions.
They forgot the Judiciary's role in this for some reason.
Liberals are likewise on both unwise and unpopular ground in sneering at the idea that there might be an increased risk of radical Islamist terrorism resulting from large numbers of Muslims entering the country as refugees or asylees.
Large numbers?
There have been many such cases in Europe
Many?
ranging from terrorists (as in the Brussels attack)
Hrm:
Ibrahim El Bakraoui - Morocco, not on the list. Najim Laachraoui - Morocco Mohamed Abrini - Belgium, not on the list Khalid El Bakraoui - Belgium Osama Krayem - Sweden, not on the list
Well Trump's order would have been ineffective against these guys.
The 9/11 plotters
Egyptian and Saudi Arabian. No impact there.
Tsarnaev
Kyrgyzstan - no use.
Times Square bomber was a Pakistani immigrant
Pakistan, not included.
Fun fact - it was a Muslim immigrant that notified the police who were able to evacuate the area.
underwear bomber was from Nigeria
So wouldn't have been prevented.
the San Bernardino shooter
Enrique Marquez Jr. - America, N/A Syed Rizwan Farook - America, N/A Tashfeen Malik - Pakistan, not on the list
the Chattanooga shooter was from Kuwait
Not covered.
the Fort Hood shooter
Nidal Hasan, America, N/A
Is it not bothersome that involved agencies weren't consulted? That little care was taken to ensure consitutionality? That the agencies that would be executing the order were not properly briefed and had varying interpretations of the order? That the Administration had no record keeping in place and were unable to advise how many people had been affected by the order?
liberal "snowflakes" melt into silly tears over
What a snowflaky opinion
This from someone who spent the last 8 years clutching pearls at Obama's reign of terror that he forgot to carry out? Who cried and whinged citing fake news about photoshopped signs and cited forged birth certificates and cried mercilessly about the persecution of Christians when a handful of people got sued? Yeah, your snowflake rhetoric comes across as laughably absurd.
Oo oo oo let's all cower before the murdering ideology
You are cowering. Oooo, we can't let fleeing people into the country, even though we are at least partially responsible for collapsing their society, because some of them might want to hurt us using methods that are designed to be all scary, lord help us what a calamity!
I have no fear of them. I do however recognize that handing them more ammunition for their propaganda war will make things worse - which makes things better for war profiteers.
I don't recall him needing any defense since nobody was protesting when he issued such orders.
quote:And do you get out of what Jefferson wrote that if half the nation (my half) passionately opposes what the other half (yours) deems to be "current realities" that your half can force that on the other, either by the Supreme Court's making the Constitution mean whatever seems to favor those supposed "current realities" or by the Executive Branch's declaring it by executive order?
Protest against Obama's Executive Orders: "Hang the lying Kenyan traitor!" "Wouldn't be the first one hung on one of them trees." "We've got rope" "Don't snap his neck, you pull him up watch him choke to death"
quote:President Obama, in all his infinite wisdom, has decided to throw away over 200 years of constitutional precedent and write an executive order severely limiting our second amendment.
I'm too tired to care what pernicious lies you are heaping on me in this weird post of yours.
What a perfectly horrid thing to say.
I noted a tension between the idea that Congress has absolute power and the President should have broad powers when Trump is in office and the idea that the President exercising his powers makes him a despotic tyrant when Obama was doing it.
You retorted you didn't remember anyone protesting Obama's use of his powers. I replied with examples of that happening, including your own protestations.
Your response to this has been to assert/assume I am heaping pernicious lies upon you. But this is a category error. Unless you know my state of mind you cannot know my perception is being dishonestly represented. Mistaken, perhaps, and I am giving you the opportunity to correct me, but it cannot be a lie. Providing you with examples can't be a pernicious lie, they serve to illustrate why I believe there is a tension between your position (and others like you) today vs some months/years ago.
Hence, smearing me as being a pernicious liar is perfectly horrid. Since you weren't too tired to call me a liar, I can only assume this was a tactic designed to upset or discredit me rather than answering my query, which leads to be more confident in the apparent hypocrisy on display from the right-wing over this particular issue...with bonus points for the hypocrisy over the issue of unjustly calling people liars.
Lie about what motivates Islamist terrorists. It's purely ideological, they are not motivated by circumstances, except as they are taught to pretend to be to deceive leftist kooks.
Their own propaganda, the tools they use to radicalize people, utilizes circumstances to drive a sense of outrage. Is this to fool 'leftist kooks' too? That seems a little peculiar.
When the infidel is strong and aggressively opposes them they retreat rather than seeking to do the harm that Islam requires of them.
Peculiarly this would be in opposition to what they believe Islam requires of them. And indeed, since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq Islamist terrorist threats and attacks have grown more frequent.
Poor silly PC-crippled Europeans who tolerate all their raping
No, they don't.
invite them to express their evil Sharia Law
No. They do give people the freedom to settle civil disputes using religious mediation if all parties consent to so doing. But that's true in America, too.
and weep big tears as if it's their own fault when these ideologically driven people do what their ideology drives them to do.
The point is that their ideology is driven by politics and religion, not just religion. Political attacks against them strengthens their resolve and is and has been used as a recruitment tool. That's the whole point of terrorism. Terrorism has never militarily defeated a powerful nation - let alone a union of them, but it has worked to change those nations for the worse, cost them disproportionate amounts of money and so on. It has only ever been stopped by understanding the underlying grievances and seeking their resolution and thereby removing most of the emotional motivation to do anything violent. Naturally - fundamentalist religious folk of all stripes are notoriously intransigent and resistant to compromise.
Turning their mothers, sisters and baby brothers away so that they have to live in warzones, or dangerous camps merely gives the young adult males motivation to want to *something*, and to feel anger and outrage. It is this desire to do something, coupled with their fury that Islamist recruiters exploit to get new bodies for their reign of terror.
Injustices (real or merely perceived) drove the people to the IRA and their offshoots, they drove people to Irgun, and they are driving them to ISIS.
Lie about the sane rational objective understanding of the supporters of the ban. a) Call us fearful.
So you aren't afraid Muslim terrorists are going to kill American citizens? You should change what you are saying, then, because it sounds like it to everybody else.
That is, YOU are scared of a Muslimj sittin gon the fence who might become violent if anyone dares to oppose their will.
Yes we are (sort of, I don't agree with your characterisation completely). Fear is not shameful. Fear is not cowardice.
However, the tactics of terrorism need to be understood in our response to it. The tactic isn't to kill everybody. It's to make scared people support politicians making policy that benefits them. The question is, what tactics benefit terrorists more? For recruitment purposes, those that seem to target 'our Muslim brothers and sisters' are a godsend. Sure, allowing refugees in might increase the probability of people that want to commit terrible acts getting in - though there are easier ways than through refugee process (though if they can get in that way, and then cause chaos, it serves their purposes of inhibiting refugees (ie., potential slaves/soldiers) fleeing them). I say, let them come here and kill themselves.
Let's say there are 200,000 members of ISIS. They all come to Europe, and they all kill 100 people in suicide attacks. It's terrible that 20,000,000 (+200,000) people just died - but ISIS just wiped itself out and very probably destroyed any will by others to join them. And it won't have made much of a dent in the European population. A 3% loss is merely a minor strategic setback - Europe has suffered and survived considerably worse in the last 150 years. It would be a complete victory against ISIS though. And looking at the terrorist attacks that they've managed to mount so far, 100 deaths each seems VERY ambitious. More like 10 at a huge push, if we discount all those that don't get past the planning stage before arrest or accidentally killing themselves.
Their violence isn't a threat to our society.
And those millions of people are more likely to be thankful for not freezing to death, drowning, being raped, mugged and so on in the numbers they were and are less likely to be swayed by Islamists. Also, we get to propagandize/proselytize to their kids, they will see our culture first hand rather than the lies they were being fed. Those that return will be motivated to replicate our internal stability and peace in their own lands - and the worst nutters are all dead so that makes it easier.
Finally, it is a dereliction of duty. America has a duty to share the burden. By refusing this duty, they are pushing the problem on other nations. Increasing the density of immigrants/refugees elsewhere increases racial tensions elsewhere, increasing anger and giving recruiters an easier job. It also means the 'demographic war' you fear will be easier for Muslims to win as they disproportionally go elsewhere. If they take Europe, Faith, America doesn't stand a chance.
that does not negate the fact that racist attacks and hate crime attacks are up.
Since it's been Trump haters attacking Trump supporters EXCLUSIVELY
Edited down but just to show the terms I'm referencing here. Hate crimes are not crimes where one person hates another. Murder is not necessarily a hate crime, nor assaulting a person who supports Trump (necessarily).
Here is the FBI's take on it:
quote:Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country
quote:A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity
Attacking someone for just their political views is not a hate crime.
They go on to say:
quote:This year’s report {covering 2015 incidents -Mod}, which contains data from 14,997 law enforcement agencies, reveals 5,850 criminal incidents and 6,885 related offenses that were motivated by bias against race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity
This includes:
quote: 59.2 percent were targeted because of a race/ethnicity/ancestry bias; 19.7 percent because of a religious bias; 17.7 percent because of a sexual orientation bias; 1.7 percent because of a gender identity bias; 1.2 percent because of a disability bias; and 0.4 percent because of a gender bias.
quote:Anti-Jewish hate crimes rose 9%, anti-black hate crimes went up by almost 8%, and anti-LGBT hate crimes increased by nearly 5%, while anti-Latino hate crimes remained steady.
Anti Muslim?
quote:In one year, anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States rose 67%, from 154 incidents in 2014 to 257 in 2015
The absolute numbers have anti-Jewish attacks at over double this (664), but raising at a considerably lower rate.
quote:Preliminary data from CAIR indicates that 2016 is on track to be the second-worst year on record when it comes to mosque attacks. This year is barely trailing the record set last year: 78 mosques were attacked in 2015.
I understand the FBI are probably lying lefties and the CNN is evil mainstream media from your perspective - but those are the numbers RAZD is probably referencing.
You can also read the FBI's report yourself, if you have the patience. From the issue of religiously motivated hate crimes it goes like this:
quote:51.3 percent were anti -Jewish.
22.2 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim) .
4.4 percent were anti-Catholic.
4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.7 percent were Anti-Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Other) .
3.5 percent were anti-Protestan
The numbers drop off from there quite a bit.
The raw numbers of hate crimes against LGBT is about the same (1200 - 1300).
But on another brief run through it I see it ISN'T relevant because the subject was executive orders on IMMIGRATION, not on just anything
I see so Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution only gives Congress absolute power and the President broad powers in the narrow field of immigration? Obama gave EOs about immigration. At least one of the examples of Tea Party protests I provided you with was a protest on Obama's executive orders regarding immigration.
I wasn't discussing anything about the tension you are talking about, just that his action was legal on this subject of banning immigration if he judges the admission of aliens to be dangerous to the country.
I was discussing the tension between your position on Obama'a judgement regarding aliens and danger - and your defence of Trump for the same. That is - it seems that when Obama did it he was breaking the laws, over reaching his authority and so on - but when Trump does it its within his authority and perfectly justified. Like your position on whether something is legal is tied up in how much you agree with it.
With such a law on the books the attempts to prevent it can only be from illegal political motives.
Well no - you see there are three branches of government who check and balance one another. So appealing to the judiciary is in fact the constitutionally correct way to attempt to inhibit an executive order. Only the legislature can put laws on the books, the President can only issue orders for how government agencies ought to practice and how they should focus their efforts etc - he cannot institute laws.
Motives are not illegal - or is the thought police OK in Trump's America and was outrageous in Obama's where you perceived it existed ?
The only one being called a despotic tyrant in this instance is Trump, again for the sake of disruption on political grounds.
There is only one President. When Obama was president, the right was calling him a despotic tyrant. I thought it represented a contradiction in the application of political theory that you and the right wing weren't seeking to defend Obama's authority then too.
Anyway, it was on the subject of immigration restriction on which I understood Obama to have acted in a similar way that I said I don't recall his needing to be defended because nobody was protesting it.
Which is why I posted an example of someone protesting it so as to help your recall. Here let me try again:
I'm afraid I didn't read your post carefully enough to get what you were saying about gun control. Sorry.
I didn't say anything on gun control. I just pointed out that some people on the right wing, yourself included, protested Obama's authority to issue Executive Orders when those orders were about gun control actions. Since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the President broad powers, and there is, as far as I'm aware nothing in there that excludes 'gun control', or indeed only talks about immigration (which would rather contradict the point of 'broad powers') that makes it relevant. My point, again, is that the right wing certainly DID protest Obama's executive orders on a number of subjects. They formed a protest movement called the Tea Party and everything. I don't remember you suggesting they were wrong because Obama had 'broad powers' but here you are saying those protesting Trump are wrong because Trump has 'broad powers'
I have the impression you are just straining to find some way to call me a hypocrite and I don't feel like playing the game.
I'm just asking you to explain why it was despotic tryanny when Obama did something you dislike, but within the powers of Presidency when Trump does you like. You raised the powers invested in the Presidency as part of your defence, I'm just asking for more insight into your thinking here. It certainly seems hypocritical, but I'm trying to discuss this in good faith and give you the opportunity to explain the tension between the different attitudes expressed about Presidential powers.
From what I can tell from a brief reading you seem to be equating an action by Obama to bring in aliens with Trump's action to keep them out.
Not equating the actions, I'm equating the power of the office, and wondering why I never heard the right wing cite the section of the Constitution and argue Obama has broad powers so his actions can be justified thusly.
I have no idea what the legal situation is with Obama's but the law I quoted does not apply to it.
Do you know why? That's what I've been asking about for some time. Were Obama's powers as president not also broad?
What I said was that I understood him to have ordered something SIMILAR to Trump's about keeping aliens out, not what you are saying
I was responding to your OP, not some entirely different tu quoque argument. I was talking about the right wing who protested Obama's 2014 EO and other EOs and the lack of people on the right defending his actions on the ground he had broad powers.
What I said was that I understood him to have ordered something SIMILAR to Trump's about keeping aliens out, not what you are saying, and that nobody protested THAT action at the time, so why are they protesting a similar action by Trump?
I'll happily discuss this, but not until you address my question about the point you raised first. Why should I answer your questions when you won't even read my posts, let alone provide a response to the one point you have actually acknowledged?
The people you show protesting are protesting his irresponsible actions in bringing IN aliens, another situation entirely.
But the President has broad powers, right? So the calls about him being a tyrant, about his actions were against the constitution or were even illegal, treasonous and all that....it seems odd the right went down that path then, but are now defending the President's office because the broadness of its power. Explain this to me, such that it absolves the right wing of any perception of hypocrisy.
Is there some political theory that means the President has broad powers but also at the same time limits the Presidents powers such that Trump passes muster where Obama did not?
You yourself argued that if half the country strongly disagrees, that a President using EO is despotic, or at least appears so. Why is Trump not being apparently despotic? Is it merely you are in the half of the country that agrees rather than being on the side that disagrees? Or is there some framework you are operating in that I don't see? Can you explain it for me?
I'm trying to have a civil, sober discussion with someone with whom I have disagreements with. If you don't want one, just let me know. I can give you hysterical off topic rambling if that makes things easier for you, but I suppose you think others already have that angle covered.
This is NOT ABOUT THE OP, it's a specific point I brought up.
What is "this"?
My Message 66 was a reply to the OP. In Message 66 I said this, in reply to a point your quoted in your OP:
quote:
quote:Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress’s powers in this area are plenary, and the president’s powers are as broad as the Congress chooses to give him.
Odd you never used this to defend Obama's actions.
That's what I've been talking about. That's what this discussion is about.
I've understood that all your convoluted posts on this subject are addressing that one simple point that started it all
The statement "Odd you never used this to defend Obama's actions" is not all that convoluted. You replied:
quote:I don't recall him needing any defense since nobody was protesting when he issued such orders.
So I replied, in Message 69 with examples of you and other right wing people protesting when he issued EOs.
quote:I noted a tension between the idea that Congress has absolute power and the President should have broad powers when Trump is in office and the idea that the President exercising his powers makes him a despotic tyrant when Obama was doing it.
That's the only point I've been making. It's not convoluted. It's perfectly straight forward. The convolutions have been yours alone. Why not provision me with an answer to the query I raised in the first place? Why are you brining up different points and telling me that that is what this discussion is about, in contradiction to the facts that I was responding to a point you raised in the OP that was nothing to do with Obama making similar executive orders?
I understood that Obama had MADE A SIMILAR EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TRUMP'S but nobody protested him.
And I have agreed to address this problem, once you had addressed the point I was originally making. You continue to avoid addressing my issue, so I don't see why I should address this point of yours. Address my point, and I'll address yours. This is the crux of a discussion in good faith. If you can't engage in such a discussion, we're just going to continue pointlessly going around in circles. I asked a question of a point YOU raised. Please address that point, I'll address your later points at that time.
You could kill two birds with one post by addressing my criticism and telling me what about the two EOs was similar, and why those similarities are relevant to the protests to Trump's EO.
You are bringing in all kinds of other things that do not address this point.
One thin only, a note regarding YOUR argument brought in the OP. You are declining to defend my criticism and are trying to shift the discussion to some other point that I have never made and have as yet never commented on. Address me and my points in good faith, I'll return the favour.
You haven't given me any reason to consider any other issue.
You raised it in your OP. That's the only reason to consider my counterargument to what you raised in the OP. If you are incapable of defending your OP, why should I address something else that isn't in your OP?
1. The order is motivated by animus of a particular religion. See the 'Muslim ban' spoke of by Rudy Giuliani as an example
2. Due process: Aliens who have never been here are only entitled to whatever Congress decides, but people that have have lost the right to travel, the right to visit their families, to perform research...etc And also people who happened to be overseas for whatever reason - attending conferences or the above etc when the order - which came with no warning - was issued. These people ARE protected by due process laws. We have standing on behalf of the people of our State for various reasons. This Order is against Congress' own processes for how these sorts of decisions should be made.
Trump:
1: The State of Washington does not have standing. They cannot cite financial harm. Loss of tax revenues is too general a claim. Any harms may be to individuals, but not to the State and are too far down the chain of causation to apply and makes this too wide a definition to allow for standing and are in any case speculative.
2: The President has the power given by Congress to deny aliens or classes of aliens where they feel it is detrimental to the United States. Trump is acting at the apex of his power. Congress and the previous Executive Administration has stated these countries are 'areas of concern' and are already subject to restrictions regarding visas etc. Congress has given discretion here to the President in these matters.
3: There is no equal protection violation because the courts made clear that distinctions regarding nationality does not violate the Constitution. Re: Religious religious discrimination, the claim is unripe: The EO doesn't favour one religion - and it states 'within the law' to look into prioritize minorities suffering persecution from all countries - not the 7 countries so it isn't just Islam for in some cases the minority religion might be Islam. So no Establishment Clause issue.
4: The court cannot 'look behind' the reasons as long as there are reasons. The court cannot look to see if the given reasons are rational just 'facially legitimate' and the court can only comment if they are 'wholly irrational'.
5. States don't have parens patriae grounds for standing.
6: There is no damage to Washington State territory.
7. Even if there is harm, it is not irreparable harm.
Washington Rebuttal:
1: The harms are not abstract. The Universities have students that are stranded overseas and they went to expense to provision those students and help with visas and bringing them here etc. In previous cases an injunction was given even BEFORE the immigration orders went into effect, and we have people currently suffering under the Order which is in effect. The individuals have their own claims, but the State also has a claim.
2: At least two courts have already blocked this on the grounds of equal protection and due process.
3: It's frightening that we can't challenge the President when it is stated it is in National Security interests - that can't be the law.
4: People who are here have had no warning before losing their rights, people who travelled had no warning they might not be able to return and are stranded. Due process was not given to these people though they are entitled to law
The Court:
We have reviewed the motion and the applicable law: The court is one of three equal branches. We don't create policy. We don't judge the wisdom of the other two branches. The judiciary is to ensure the actions of those branches are in line with the laws and the Constitution. "Can we issue a TRO in this case?", is the narrow question at hand.
I do have subject matter jurisdiction.
Is the Plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits, will it suffer harm in the absence of TRO and is it in the public interest?
The standing law is a little murky. I find the State, however, does have standing due to the direct immediate harm to their institutions in addition to their people.
The merits: The court finds the State has met its burden that it faces immediate injury, I find the State it is likely to succeed on the merits of claims, the balance of equities favour the State. The TRO is in the public interest.
The court should and will grant the TRO. The scope: Federal defendants and their officers and attorneys et al are hereby restrained from a) Enforcing section 3c b) enforcing section 5a c) enforcing section 5b d) enforcing section 5c e) enforcing section 5e
This is on a nationwide basis at all borders and points of entry, pending further orders from the court as partial implementation undermines the uniformity of naturalization and immigration laws.
Well, that seems like a pretty important difference.
Is this true?
To clarify: This was not in reference to the immigration restriction but I believe the specific case cited was United States vs Texas and DAPA - quite the opposite kind of immigration law (it delayed deportation in certain cases - basically if an illegal immigrant has a legal American child), but the courts allowed an injunction though no immediate damages or suffering was in play.
Those that brought cases against Obama, argued he had overstepped his authority in issuing it and that before anybody could be granted benefits from it, a restraining order was necessary while the courts decided Obama was even allowed to issue the order.
The State of Washington argued the same principles applied here, so injunctive relief in the form of a TRO should also be issued.
When Obama made the similar order, was there a declaration of preparation and people were warned such a thing was going to go into effect at a certain date?
I'm not sure there was warning, but then, there was no need as far as I could tell. People that had visas were allowed to travel still. Obama's 'Iraqi Ban' was actually a slowing down on Special Immigration Visa processing and refugee processing from Iraq while screening processes were tightened up. So nobody who was entitled to due process was left stranded, or unable to travel to conferences, visit family etc.
We were nominally at war with Iraq, the Bowling Green arrests occurred and the 58,000 people that had entered were ordered to be re-screened - delaying but not stopping new applicants.
Re: Comparison with Obama's immigration executive action
Politifact said Trump's claim was correct up to a point.
It says the similarities are 'superficial' and the differences significant. The similarity is that they limited immigration. That's it. That isn't what people are protesting that has inspired the 'wacko liberal response' - the reasons for protesting lie in the differences.
Then they went on to their opinion that the differences are great. I don't see it, as I said.
quote:n 2011, there was a specific threat
You were at war with the nation in question, and two people tied to IED manufacture in Iraq got through the vetting process, so the vetting needed upgrading.
What is Trump's specific threat? There is none.
quote:Obama’s order was narrower in scope
One country, that you were at war with, the processing of one kind of visa and refugees, and the revetting of those already processed. Trump's was a ban on all visas, multiple countries.
quote:The Obama administration in 2011 delayed processing Iraqi refugees for six months following evidence of a failed plot by two Iraqi refugees.
Trump’s executive order temporarily bars travel to the United States for all citizens from seven countries, and it is not in direct response to actions from citizens of those countries.
Furthermore, Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.
Not sure what you don't see. They differ in significant ways.
THE POINT WAS TO SHOW THAT OBAMA ALSO LIMITED IMMIGRATION
THE POINT IS THAT LIMITING IMMIGRATION MIGHT CAUSE SOME UPSET, BUT WE ALL AGREE IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT - THE PROBLEM WITH TRUMP'S ORDER IS NOT THE LIMITING OF IMMIGRATION, BUT LIMITING IT SO MUCH AND SO WITHOUT WARNING THAT PEOPLE THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED PASSAGE AT THEIR EXPENSE, AND THE EXPENSE OF AMERICAN COMPANIES AND INSTITUTIONS FOUND THEMSELVES UNABLE TO RETURN TO THEIR JOBS AND STUDIES WHILE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD TRAVEL PLANS (AT THEIR EXPENSE) TO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES HAD TO CANCEL THEIR PLANS - CAUSING CHAOS AND CONFUSION ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE PLAN'S INTENT AND SCOPE WAS POORLY COMMUNICATED SUCH THAT DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDERSTOOD THE ORDER IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND ALSO THE ADMINISTRATION ITSELF CHANGED ITS MIND AS TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY COVERED 5 TIMES WITHIN THE SPACE OF ONE WEEK.
THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS THE SAME IN BOTH CASES BUT NOBODY WOULD ACCUSE OF OBAMA OF SUCH PERFIDY
Because Obama didn't screw people over who had already been given the all clear. Obama didn't leave people from a multitude of nations in limbo, students unsure if they could return to study, scientists unable to travel to conferences. He just re-vetted Iraq Special Visa applications, delaying some future refugee and special visa applications.
ALL THE REST IS NATTERING NITPICKING DESIGNED TO DISTORT AND DISRUPT.
The judiciary seems to disagree with you. I suppose your legal knowledge outstrips theirs.
SOROS: No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it.
KROFT: No feelings of guilt?
SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power.
That's not what was said. THat was right wing propagandists version, but it isn't what was said.
Here is what was actually said, on the video you posted, instead of the nonsense you posted:
quote:
SOROS: Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't see the connection...but it created no problem
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example "I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people I could just as easily be there/I should be there; none of that?
SOROS: Well...of course...I could be on the other side...I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away...but...there was no sense that I should be there - because...that was...well actually - funny way - it's just like in markets, if I weren't there (and of course, I wasn't doing it!) but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow - whether I was there or not - I was only a spectator - the property was being taken away. I had no role in taking away their property, so I had no sense of guilt
Your distorted version is a grotesque perversion of the man's words - so utterly divorced from the actual exchange you should be be ashamed to have regurgitated it blindly; without bothering to verify it.
There is no doubt whatever that Trump's ban is constitutional. The court's banning it is way out of line.
Sounds contradictory. Surely the court has some doubts, which is why they issued a TRO.
Any such action these days that comes against Trump is not justifiable
Trump has been elevated preemptively as being beyond reproach? No executive order can be questioned? If he ordered the execution of all Christians you would not question his constitutional power to do this?
it is very clear that the President has the right to keep aliens temporarily out of the country if he considers them to be a potential danger to the security of the nation.
Yes he does, unless, for example, he were to say something to the effect 'Christians are a danger to the security of the nation so all Christian aliens are banned'. Additionally, certain aliens (eg., those that have been given visas already - especially those that have lived in the US on those visas) have a right to due process.
Rushing things is how Trump hopes to keep up the momentum of fulfilling his campaign promises.
Rushing is neither necessary nor wise for a President.
quote:But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.
quote:nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
That's right in the Constitution. Non-citizens within US jurisdiction are equally protected as citizens.
The US can "discriminate" against any noncitizens it wants for whatever reason, including religions.
Wrong wrong wrong.
We have no obligation to let anyone into the country we don't want to let in.
Right. However, just like 'Right of admission reserved' in a club means you can refuse admission - you still can't refuse someone because they are black or a Christian without breaking the law.
And the President is only the representative of one branch of government. Th representatives of 'We the people' includes a legislature and a judiciary. So their opinion also comes into play too.
™ Version 4.2
