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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 616 of 993 (799409)
02-10-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by Faith
02-09-2017 11:02 PM


Re: wondering
quote:
So let me understand. Most here want Muslims to be free to enter the country with little or no vetting? Any restrictions at all
This is one of the reasons why American politics has become polarised - the lies and the hate of the right.
Nobody here has suggested that there should be no vetting. I don't recall anyone here protesting the enhanced vetting that is already in place for the affected countries.
If you actually care about getting things right maybe you should pay attention to what people are saying instead of inventing convenient strawman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 617 of 993 (799410)
02-10-2017 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by NoNukes
02-09-2017 7:41 PM


Re: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stomps mudhole in Trump Executive Order
The decision (PDF)
Necessary reading for anyone who wants to argue about the merits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2017 7:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 10:10 AM PaulK has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 618 of 993 (799414)
02-10-2017 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by Faith
02-09-2017 12:44 AM


Hi Faith.
The full text of the decision is posted above - and I'm led to understand that the decision was unanimous and that one of the three judges is a Republican nominee.
Does this go any way to persuading you that there might be some conservative opinion which believes the order was unconstitutional ? I'm not asking you to change your mind on the issue itself - but do you acknowledge that even some conservatives hold a different view to yours ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 12:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by jar, posted 02-10-2017 7:29 AM vimesey has not replied
 Message 629 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:37 AM vimesey has not replied

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


Message 619 of 993 (799416)
02-10-2017 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by Faith
02-09-2017 11:02 PM


Re: wondering
Faith writes:
So let me understand. Most here want Muslims to be free to enter the country with little or no vetting? Any restrictions at all?
Same with people crossing our southern border? No deportations, some deportions?
No one has said that there should be no vetting. And yes, all borders should be treated equally. It is not a case that all borders are equal, but some borders are more equal than others.
However someone living in the US for over twenty years in a stable family situation with two kids that were born in the US and so US citizens seems to qualify as vetted.
AbE: Also, I see no reason that Muslims should be treated any differently when it comes to vetting than Christians or Buddhists or Taoists or Animists or Jews or Hindus or atheists or agnostics or Satanists.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:
Edited by jar, : appalin spalling that ----> than

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:02 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 620 of 993 (799417)
02-10-2017 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 618 by vimesey
02-10-2017 5:07 AM


on Judges.
Judge Richard Clifton was one of the three judges and was appointed by President George W. Bush.
The original stay was issued by Judge James Robart who was also appointed by George W Bush.
So half of the Judges who have spoken to the issue so far were conservative appointees.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by vimesey, posted 02-10-2017 5:07 AM vimesey has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 621 of 993 (799421)
02-10-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Faith
02-09-2017 1:58 PM


I have many times rejected conservative views. And I would this time too except I expect it to turn out that the Liberals are doing the usual obfuscating obstructionist bleep.
You did not say that you "expected" anything. No matter what you may or may not have done other times, this time you explicitly stated that the as-yet-unknown conservative position would be the true one and you would reject the liberal position if it differed.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 1:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 622 of 993 (799422)
02-10-2017 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by Faith
02-09-2017 11:02 PM


Re: wondering
So let me understand. Most here want Muslims to be free to enter the country with little or no vetting? Any restrictions at all?
Same with people crossing our southern border? No deportations, some deportions?
That's ridiculous. Your message is a false dichotimy fallacy. There are an infinite number of pssible positions between Trump's illegal order and no control over immigration. Nobody here (or, I bet, anywhere) want's no control over immigration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:02 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 623 of 993 (799427)
02-10-2017 9:00 AM


more information on the crime the mother that was deported committed
It seems that the crime that led to the deportation of the Phoenix mother really was heinous. It seems she was working at a the Golfland Sunsplash Amusement Park in Mesa back in 2009 under a false id. Since then she has been reporting at least annually to immigration.
She had been in the US since she was brought here when she was only 14, grew up here, married here and has two US Citizen children and her great crime was working to help support her family.
Yup. I feel so much safer now that she is back in Mexico.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title grammur

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

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


(2)
Message 624 of 993 (799433)
02-10-2017 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 595 by Faith
02-09-2017 5:32 PM


Re: sovereignty
No I want to go back to the way the American legal system functioned before it got turned into case law.
Case law has always been part of American law, remember? Which is a feature it got from British law, dating back to the reign of King Henry II, remember?
But no, you don't remember either of those things, do you? Information that doesn't support your prejudices rolls off you like water off a stupid duck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 5:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 625 of 993 (799434)
02-10-2017 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 617 by PaulK
02-10-2017 1:54 AM


Re: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stomps mudhole in Trump Executive Order
My quick review of the decision.
First note that this is only a decision over whether the restraining order should be stayed. The restraining order simply prevents some sections of the order from being put into effect until the decision can go to a full trial.
The Trump camp got one victory. Normally a Temporary Restraining Order cannot be appealed. The court decided to treat this one as a very similar preliminary injunction.
On the issue of standing the judges agreed that the States did have standing to bring the issue to trial.
The government argued that the courts were not permitted to review the Executive Order. This would effectively allow the Executive to ignore the Constitution in this area, since the usual system of checks and balances would not apply. Predictably the court rejected this claim.
To get a stay, the Federal government had to show that they were likely to win the eventual trial, and that the "balance of hardships" favoured their position. The public interest is an additional factor.
On the first the court all but decided that the order was unconstitutional, with regard to Due Process rights. The analysis is preliminary and the Federal government would have the opportunity to raise arguments at full trial, but it does not look good for Trump.
The court did not rule on the religious discrimination issue, holding that the Due Process arguments were sufficient for this hearing.
On the balance of hardships the government argument was that they had information which they refused to share with the court. This, predictably, did not go down well.
With regard to separation of powers the fact that the case only concerned an injunction - and that the government would have a chance to argue the issue in court was sufficient to show that the "harm" was eminently repairable.
The State's case on the other hand that they and other interested parties would suffer harm through enforcement of the order was held to be compelling.
Both sides were held to have a public interest case, so that factor did not sway the decision either way.
In my view the order as it stands is a mess - and the fact that the government argued that they didn't intend to enforce part of it only adds to that impression. Rather than fighting it out in court and attacking judges the Trump administration should withdraw the current order and come up with a new one without the problems. It would save time and money all round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 1:54 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by Theodoric, posted 02-10-2017 10:31 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 627 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2017 10:41 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 675 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 6:25 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 626 of 993 (799435)
02-10-2017 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by PaulK
02-10-2017 10:10 AM


Re: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stomps mudhole in Trump Executive Order
Rather than fighting it out in court and attacking judges the Trump administration should withdraw the current order and come up with a new one without the problems. It would save time and money all round.
Yes that would be the reasonable thing. This joker is incapable of admitting defeat or failure. In his eyes, he has never been wrong or made a wrong decision. He will fight this to the bitter end.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 10:10 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 627 of 993 (799436)
02-10-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by PaulK
02-10-2017 10:10 AM


Re: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stomps mudhole in Trump Executive Order
Rather than fighting it out in court and attacking judges the Trump administration should withdraw the current order and come up with a new one without the problems. It would save time and money all round.
But it wouldn't save the president's ego. Withdrawing the Executive Order is not going to happen. Besides, this is only a bunch of judges backed by false news while the nation's imminent security hangs so precariously in the balance. Just ask the White House's resident openly Islamophobic-white supremacist-closeted-nazi, Steve Bannon, who wrote the order without staffing it to any other department and which Trump sign without the full knowledge of its content. He'll tell you how dire our situation is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2017 10:10 AM PaulK has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 628 of 993 (799437)
02-10-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by NoNukes
02-09-2017 7:05 PM


Re: jurisdiction
NoNukes writes:
Now, are you willing to support your claim that the law only mitigates your criminal liability rather than excusing it with something other than assertion?
Your quote does it for me. The court must decide on intent to cause death, on how much force was necessary, on whether or not there was reasonable apprehension of death, on whether his belief was based on reasonable grounds....
It isn't black and white. The court has to decide on a shade of gray. That's mitigation.
NoNukes writes:
What do you think justification means?
Justification is not an eraser.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by NoNukes, posted 02-09-2017 7:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2017 10:21 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 629 of 993 (799442)
02-10-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 618 by vimesey
02-10-2017 5:07 AM


Conservative opinion
Hi Faith.
The full text of the decision is posted above - and I'm led to understand that the decision was unanimous and that one of the three judges is a Republican nominee.
Does this go any way to persuading you that there might be some conservative opinion which believes the order was unconstitutional ?
I'm not asking you to change your mind on the issue itself - but do you acknowledge that even some conservatives hold a different view to yours ?
Not because one of the judges is a Republican, no, because there are unfortunately quite a few Republicans who are sabotaging Trump in various ways already.
What I mean about seeing conservative opinion on the subject is opinion that comes from political websites and blogs and talk shows. I'm sure I'll get to see and hear a lot of that over the next few days. I know I'll get flak for this but I'm not up to going and looking for it. It will come to me soon enough.
At this point I'd like to see Trump withdraw the first ban and draft a new one. Just seems simpler. Enough fighting already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by vimesey, posted 02-10-2017 5:07 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 630 by 1.61803, posted 02-10-2017 11:43 AM Faith has replied
 Message 633 by ringo, posted 02-10-2017 11:52 AM Faith has replied
 Message 677 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2017 6:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 630 of 993 (799443)
02-10-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 629 by Faith
02-10-2017 11:37 AM


Re: Conservative opinion
Faith writes:
.....quite a few Republicans who are sabotaging Trump in various ways already.
Umm, I think he is doing a good job of sabotaging his self.
Along with the stooges he appointed as council and press secretary.
DJT will probably set a record for the fastest impeachment in presidential history.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by Faith, posted 02-10-2017 11:49 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but 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