Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,763 Year: 4,020/9,624 Month: 891/974 Week: 218/286 Day: 25/109 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 993 (798002)
01-30-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2017 8:41 AM


In fact I find the 1965 law also discussed in the article to be a problem because it disallows discrimination on the basis of nationality. In my opinion any nation should be allowed to discriminate against the entry of members of any other nation for any reason whatever.
You are entitled to your opinion. There are established procedures for changing laws you don't like.
But the law is the law, and the US Government is charged with enforcing it. Governmental actions that prima facie break the law are illegal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 8:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 9:09 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 30 of 993 (798035)
01-30-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
01-30-2017 12:27 PM


Yeah, none of that separation of powers crap in the new America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 01-30-2017 12:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 110 of 993 (798167)
01-31-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2017 12:20 PM


Green cards don't get full Constitutional rights, but near full.
E.g. they can't vote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2017 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 112 of 993 (798169)
01-31-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2017 12:20 PM


The legality of the order will have to be tested in court, there are conflicts within the law.
14th Amendment, section 1:
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
8 U.S. Code 1152 - Numerical limitations on individual foreign states:
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.
8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens:
quote:
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.
(ii) Exception for officials
An alien who is an official of a foreign government or a purported government, or who is a candidate for election to a foreign government office during the period immediately preceding the election for that office, shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) solely because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.
(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
.
.
.
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2017 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(5)
Message 113 of 993 (798170)
01-31-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
01-31-2017 1:09 PM


Re: Trump fires Acting Attorney General
Sessions is a racist bigot that was deemed to be unfit to be a federal judge because of his views.
That's a big fat evil lie.
Sorry, no it's just the facts, ma'am. He indeed was deemed to be unfit to be a federal judge specifically because of his racist views and history.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 01-31-2017 1:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 148 of 993 (798255)
02-01-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
02-01-2017 9:04 AM


The Constitution does not apply to noncitizens of America.
14th amendment:
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Anyone on US soil is protected by the Constitution. People coming to the US is different, but green card holders are protected wherever they are.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 02-01-2017 9:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(7)
Message 161 of 993 (798274)
02-01-2017 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
02-01-2017 1:15 PM


Re: Pictures worth a thousand words
I said there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist ACTING ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. ALL your examples can be shown to violate Christian principles.
Yep, that's what you said. Known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy AKA circular reasoning.
If a terrorist is a professed Christian and claims to be acting in accordance with Christian principles, that's a Christian terrorist. Whether or not you think he is violating Christian principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 02-01-2017 1:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2017 2:07 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 02-01-2017 2:08 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 321 of 993 (798908)
02-06-2017 12:22 PM


The little-noticed bombshell in Trump's immigration order
quote:
But immigration lawyers who have read the order carefully are now increasingly concerned that one of its provisions could have much wider repercussions, affecting literally every foreign visitor to America, from tourists to diplomats.
The little-noticed section, appearing immediately after the travel ban, calls for the government to develop a uniform screening standard and procedure for all individuals seeking to enter the United States. As written, it appears to require all visitors to go through the same vetting measures, regardless of where they come from or how long they intend to stay.
If interpreted as broadly as it’s written, It would basically shut down tourism, said Stephen Legomsky, the former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Obama administration.
{emphasis added}
Noting like running the country by the worst and the dumbest. [/quote]

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 353 of 993 (798963)
02-06-2017 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Taq
02-06-2017 12:26 PM


It may or may not be unconstitutional (I think it is but what do I know), but it may be illegal because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ironic if it is, because it was created to allow Christians to refuse to serve Teh Creeping Gay.
How Trump's Executive Order on Immigration Violates Religious Freedom Laws - Just Security

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 12:26 PM Taq has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 480 of 993 (799126)
02-07-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by NoNukes
02-07-2017 1:25 PM


It would be quite easy to devise a restriction that would officially apply to all religions and ideologies but would only in fact affect Islam.
And if a court could unravel such a device, it would might still be unconstitutional. If Trump had been mouthing off about keeping Muslims out of the country before passing such a law, a court would consider such ranting as evidence of Trump's intention to pass a law that does not meet the requirements of the first amendment
Chris Christie stated that he did what Faith wants. The courts currently considering Trump's ban are allowed to take note of such statements and consider the motives of the people involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2017 1:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 481 of 993 (799127)
02-07-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Lying polls again. Also lying photos
We also know there weren't any pro-Trump demonstrations. Why should there be?
Oh, there've been plenty. It's just that they've been tiny.
Portland, Maine:
Eight people (yes, 8) attend pro-Trump rally in Portland — and Twitter noticed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2017 1:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 493 of 993 (799150)
02-07-2017 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2017 1:42 PM


Re: Lying polls again. Also lying photos
We also know there weren't any pro-Trump demonstrations. Why should there be?
Oh, there've been plenty. It's just that they've been tiny.
fifty people demonstrate support for Trump in front of Trump Tower.
Fifty. In NEW YORK CITY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2017 1:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Faith, posted 02-07-2017 8:49 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 535 of 993 (799255)
02-08-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Faith
02-08-2017 11:42 AM


Re: Gotta love those double standards.
From everything I've read Sessions has an excellent civil rights record.
Try some sites or publications that present facts. Remember that he didn't get his judgeship in 1986. Remember why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 02-08-2017 11:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 583 of 993 (799354)
02-09-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Faith
02-09-2017 11:14 AM


Re: sovereignty
I haven't seen any legal justification for the raising of the issue or the injunction
If you had been paying attention you would have.
I'm waiting for a conservative to discuss all this. If they agree with you, fine; if not, I go with them.
With no interest in or consideration of what is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 194 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 584 of 993 (799355)
02-09-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by Faith
02-09-2017 12:13 PM


Re: sovereignty
I'm waiting for a conservative to discuss all this. If they agree with you, fine; if not, I go with them.
So legal or illegal doesn't matter, just your personal preferences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 12:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024