Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 256 of 993 (798565)
02-03-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Theodoric
02-03-2017 11:09 AM


I don't see any Christians on your statistics.
The argument is that Islam's strategy for taking the world for Allah involves quietly waiting until it has the population and the strength to take over a nation it has settled, so your statistics are utterly irrelevant and misleading.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2017 11:09 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 993 (798567)
02-03-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
02-03-2017 1:44 PM


Re: Ireland
I'll start a new thread, I'd be derailing this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 02-03-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 258 of 993 (798568)
02-03-2017 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by NoNukes
02-03-2017 3:40 AM


Now I am sure you will want to argue that anyone who kills is not a true Scotsman or Christian, but such arguments aren't worthwhile.
False. Absolutely crucial. It is the ideology of Islam that seeks to take the world for Allah. Christianity has no such aim. When a Muslim acts to kill "infidels" it's because of the teachings of Islam. Anyone you want to call a Christian if only nominally Christian, not having the Holy Spirit, may do all kinds of violent things, but against the teachings of Christianity. A true Christian, yes that is the important category, does no violence because his religion teaches against violence. The distinction is crucial.
The actual acts of violence by Muslims don't tell the whole story either. When Muslims are interviewed they agree in great numbers with jihadist actions and against the interests of any "infidel" nation they live in.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : clarify

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2017 3:40 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 259 of 993 (798672)
02-04-2017 2:23 PM


State of Washington:


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.

Trump:

We move to suspend the TRO while we appeal

Court:


I deny the motion.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 260 of 993 (798746)
02-05-2017 9:31 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 9:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 261 of 993 (798748)
02-05-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dr Adequate
02-05-2017 9:31 AM


The two ladies should really be George Soros and the leader of CAIR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2017 9:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2017 10:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 262 of 993 (798751)
02-05-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
02-05-2017 9:59 AM


Cartoonists usually try to make their cartoons more relevant to reality than to your insane delusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 9:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 11:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 993 (798753)
02-05-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Adequate
02-05-2017 10:55 AM


For a long time now, the "mainstream" cartoonists have geared their stuff predominantly to Leftist propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2017 10:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2017 1:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 267 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 264 of 993 (798758)
02-05-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
02-02-2017 7:56 AM


Faith writes:
I understood that Obama had MADE A SIMILAR EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TRUMP'S but nobody protested him. SIMILAR EXECUTIVE ORDER. You are bringing in all kinds of other things that do not address this point. You haven't given me any reason to consider any other issue.
Similar to the effect of banning people from different countries?
Yes.
But what is the difference?
Modulus quoting The State of Washington in Court writes:
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.
Message 259
Well, that seems like a pretty important difference.
Is this true?
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?
Then when Trump makes the similar order, he doesn't warn anyone, puts it into effect immediately and strands a whole ton of people who cannot return or make other arrangements?
If this is true, it seems like a very important difference.
Faith, did you not understand this difference?
Or, did you always understand such a thing and you just don't think that it is significant in anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 02-02-2017 7:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2017 12:44 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 1:32 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 1:33 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 265 of 993 (798767)
02-05-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Stile
02-05-2017 11:39 AM


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.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Stile, posted 02-05-2017 11:39 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 266 of 993 (798769)
02-05-2017 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
02-05-2017 11:03 AM


For a long time now, the "mainstream" cartoonists have geared their stuff predominantly to Leftist propaganda.
Yeah, those Leftists go about claiming that George Soros isn't even a member of the judiciary. You'd never catch a conservative knowing a thing like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 11:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 1:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 267 of 993 (798772)
02-05-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
02-05-2017 11:03 AM


Faith writes:
For a long time now, the "mainstream" cartoonists have geared their stuff predominantly to Leftist propaganda.
Maybe because the Right Wing doesn't have a sense of humour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 11:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 993 (798776)
02-05-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Stile
02-05-2017 11:39 AM


Here's what Politifact says about the comparison between Obama's and Trump's orders. You can go on to read at the link that they argue that Obama had good reason for it in his judgment. I think that is irrelevant. Trump is completely within the law to determine the necessity of the restriction. And the point of making the comparison is to try to answer the screaming Lefists who make it sound like it's a weird unheard-of decision on Trump's part when Obama identified exactly the same nations, and held up their travel freedom for 90 days, and Syrian travel freedom for six months. Trump is holding them all up for six months. There is really no cause whatever for all the clamor and disruptiveness; it's obviously political in the worst possible sense and hasn't a legal leg to stand on.
"My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror," Trump wrote in a Jan. 29 statement. "To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting."
To refresh, Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27 barring citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya from entering the United States for 90 days. It also puts Syrian refugee admissions on hold indefinitely. (We go over some of the key issues in this explainer.)
In 2011, Obama’s state department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months, though it didn’t disclose the policy like Trump did, ABC reported in 2013.
I see no reference in that article to a difference in warning given, but that seems like a strange complaint after Trump spent months promising to do such things. I think it's just that the Left is determined to disrupt anything Trump does and tell lies about it to make the public believe he's at fault when he isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Stile, posted 02-05-2017 11:39 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 993 (798777)
02-05-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Stile
02-05-2017 11:39 AM


Comparison with Obama's immigration executive action
Here's what Politifact says about the comparison between Obama's and Trump's orders. You can go on to read at the link that they argue that Obama had good reason for it in their judgment. I think that is irrelevant. Trump is completely within the law to determine the necessity of the restriction. And the point of making the comparison is to try to answer the screaming Lefists who make it sound like it's a weird unheard-of decision on Trump's part when Obama identified exactly the same nations, and held up their travel freedom for 90 days, and Syrian travel freedom for six months. Trump is holding them all up for six months. There is really no cause whatever for all the clamor and disruptiveness; it's obviously political in the worst possible sense and hasn't a legal leg to stand on.
"My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror," Trump wrote in a Jan. 29 statement. "To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting."
To refresh, Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27 barring citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya from entering the United States for 90 days. It also puts Syrian refugee admissions on hold indefinitely. (We go over some of the key issues in this explainer.)
In 2011, Obama’s state department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months, though it didn’t disclose the policy like Trump did, ABC reported in 2013.
I see no reference in that article to a difference in warning given, but that seems like a strange complaint after Trump spent months promising to do such things. I think it's just that the Left is determined to disrupt anything Trump does and tell lies about it to make the public believe he's at fault when he isn't.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Stile, posted 02-05-2017 11:39 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2017 2:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 272 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 2:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 993 (798780)
02-05-2017 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Dr Adequate
02-05-2017 1:09 PM


Soros buys them all. CAIR threatens them all. Your stuff is so demented these days I have to suspect that you're a paid stooge yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2017 1:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2017 4:04 PM 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