Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

The Constitution DOES give rights to non-citizens as has already been shown in this thread Message 84. So why are you amazed that people would say so ?

quote:

---

That is a ridiculous misreading.

---

Then show that it is. It hardly seems unreasonable to regard non-citizens as people, for a start.

Yawn. If you can't be bothered to understand the issues don't post ignorant rants about them.We are talking about the right to due process for non-citizens arriving at the airport with valid travel documents - as guaranteed by a plain reading of the 14th Amendment. Whether they are allowed to stay or not is another matter.But asserting that a plain reading of the 14th Amendment is a "ridiculous misreading" in the face of settled case law to the contrary can hardly be considered anything other than ignorant and arrogant.

It means a crushing defeat.

This statement was made by a judge who decided in favour of an immigrant in August last year: Will Faith declare this judge a "wacko liberal" ?

We've covered this before. Faith is being stu/paid and refusing to read what is written

There are plenty of honest people here who can see the untruths you are saying.If you don't like that, then it is sad, but it is your problem.

I guess that maybe most of us are being too polite to you, but other than that I doubt you can find a single instance of dishonesty in my posts in this thread - and I am hardly the only one here that could be said of.We cannot say the same for you.

Let us rephrase that to be more accurate "are there any gullible fools who unquestionably believe you and can't see what you are doing?" Because that is the only way an honest person could possibly agree with you. And yes, I am probably being too polite again.

Why should you worry about the Muslims ? You say pretty much the same about the Catholics and they have a far stronger position in the U.S. When you consider how many Catholics are on the Supreme Court you should be very afraid. And glad that Scalia is gone.

But surely many Muslims are good people, too.And you did argue that Catholics should be denied the right to hold political office because of the threat they posed.If Catholics have failed to take over the U.S. despite all their advantages, why should Muslims be considered a threat ?

You are really not answering the point. While I am glad to see you apparently walking back on your opposition to Catholics holding political office nothing you say really makes it clear why Muslims should be considered a greater threat.The more so if you really believe that the End Times are near and the Pope is the AntiChrist. (And let us face it, Muslims are not exactly likely to worship the image of the Beast!)

Faith, simply ignoring the relevant differences does not make a case. Remember that the Trump Administration originally intended to turn back Green Card holders at the airport which, it seems is not even within the scope of the law that Trump is relying on.In contrast the Obama order did not even effect people who already had visas - simply people applying for refugee visas. From a Constituional perspective this is almost certainly legal even without a reason, and I don't doubt that the courts would take the reason into account. It is certainly not subject to the most important objections raised against Trump's orders which centre on people who already have been issued visas.And, I might point out that the lack of warning is rather more important when it means people being turned back at the airport rather than the processing of applications.So the claim that the objections are purely political doesn't hold water. To give one just example the companies objecting because their employees can't come to the U.S. to work aren't objecting because of politics. They are objecting because they are being hurt for no good reason, without any consultation.

quote:

---

Politifact said Trump's claim was correct up to a point. Then they went on to their opinion that the differences are great. I don't see it, as I said.

---

It wasn't hard to find the major differences. Surely the fact that most of the issues where Trump has (so far) lost in court don't even apply to the Obama order is relevant for a start - and how could you not notice that ? How could you be unaware of the fact that the Trump order lead to turning back or detaining people arriving in the U.S. with valid papers because the order wasn't communicated until they were already in the air ? Something that could not have happened with the Obama order because it did not even apply to people who had valid travel documents ?

quote:

---

The point of posting that was to get the facts into the picture, they show the similarity of the basic facts quite clearly

---

If you want the facts in the picture you should thank me for pointing out the important facts that you missed.

quote:

---

Who cares? I don't.

---

So you don't care about the facts, the law or innocents getting hurt for no good reason. Charming.

quote:

---

Meanwhile the factual similarities are exactly as Trump characterized them.

---

Go on, tell, us what Trump claimed. Is it just the the orders were similar ? I guess you could say that Trump was only misleading by omission on that. Or are you asserting that there are real factual similarities which somehow override the obvious differences which are the basis of many complaints against Trumps order - and even more importantly his legal defeats.