Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

These were Muslims, kept out of the United States by Trump's Executive Order, and allowed in only because the White House relented on cases like theirs.I understand that you don't like people knowing that but trying to shout it down with lies is not the answer.

Given your complete refusal to honestly address the issues at all - instead "answering" with empty falsehoods - I can only assume that your actual opinion is one you don't want to admit to.

Fact and justified suspicions. Thank you for providing further justification.

quote:

---

Trump was acting under a law that is about as simple and clear as it is possible to get, that gives the President, nobody else, the President alone, the power to restrict the entry of any alien or aliens as he -- he and only he -- determines the need for the sake of national security.

---

In fact it isn't quite that simple. The Trump administration thought that it applied to Green Card holders and it does not. And that hinges on technical interpretations of the language.Then we get to the constitional issues. The law cannot authorise any actions in violation of the Constitution. And that is a very necessary restriction - the special procedures for amending the Constitution are there for a reason and letting the legislature change or negate parts of the Constitution without going through those procedures would go quite against the intent.

quote:

---

If it's just a matter of resolving the status of green card and visa holders why is it taking so long?

---

The main reason is that the Trump administration wants to keep people holding visas out of the country and the courts think he can't do it by Executive Order. Obama never tried that so comparisons with Obama's order are irrelevant. It has to be argued out in the courts. If Trump were to give in on that issue a lot of the cases would go away, and Trump would have a good chance of winning the rest.

quote:

---

1) I don't see how the Constitution has anything to do with this. I believe it shouldn't, but I also believe it doesn't.

---

It has been explained to you why it does. And I don't see anything wrong with the Constitution mandating fair and equal treatment under the law for everyone - even non-citizens.

quote:

---

2) I don't see a reason why visa and green card holders couldn't be included in the ban; the law is about restricting or banning aliens, period. Individual exceptions can be vetted one by one

---

The Constitution mandates due process and an arbitrary decree by the President shouldn't really count. Also, the technical language of the law excludes Green Card holders. Explained in this ruling

quote:

---

3) I certainly don't trust anyone on the Left to straighten these things out fairly. And that includes the courts dealing with it right now. Political ideological obstruction and intentional time-wasting explain it all best.

---

Well it is interesting that you should automatically label all judges - including Bush appointees - as being on the Left. But the idea that this is political obstructionism doesn't hold water. As we have seen.

quote:

---

4. So at this point I'm waiting to see if a good clear conservative discussion of all the supposed hangups comes alonG

---

Any genuinely good discussion will have to deal with the points above, and will not agree with you on a number of issues.

It's not Foreigners Who are Plotting HereThere is quite a detailed discussion based on FBI statistics. And to provide some useful context That is a pretty thin case to justify drastic measures - especially when there are real doubts about the Constitionality of the move.

quote:

---

It has NOT been "explained" how the Constitution applies to any aliens OUTSIDE wanting to come in.

---

The idea is that once they have been given permission to enter (remember that is what we are talking about, not just anybody who wants in) it can't be taken away without good reason. Which is sorely lackingIf you want details I am sure that the court decisions will offer that.

quote:

---

The idea that due process is owed to ALIENS SEEKING ENTRY TO OUR COUNTRY makes no sense to me whatever.

---

That is because you are selfish and mean.

quote:

---

I'll wait for a good discussion by a conservative on such questions. "Technical language" sounds like an opportunity for all kinds of Leftist flimflam. I'm also getting a little tired of foreigners like you telling us what our laws mean.

---

I'm just reporting what the judge said. You know the guy who has the authority to say what the laws mean. If your "good conservative" source disagrees, it is very likely wrong.

quote:

---

I've "seen" no such thing.

---

Your blindness is your problem. But so far your only "evidence" is that the courts didn't decide the way you want.

quote:

---

Your opinion counts for nothing to me

---

Well obviously. I don't tell the stupid lies that you want to hear, and that you can pass off as facts. The problem is that you don't want a genuinely good discussion from any side.

quote:

---

An article that describes the immigration ban as malevolent and incompetent in the first sentence should be thrown in the trash.

---

In Faithistan all dissent will be silenced.

quote:

---

What utter stu/pidity. What does DATA have to do with an ideology that has stated its plan to move into foreign countries, build up its population, acquire political power, and subjugate the country for Allah?

---

Faith, it is not stupid to talk about the supposed reasons for the ban. What is stupid is talking about paranoid conspiracy theories instead.

quote:

---

Why should I believe this?

---

Check it out, look at the evidence if you doubt it. Looks reliable to me, and I am not the one who has a habit of trusting crazy liars.

quote:

---

The law is clear, it does not require justification; and there are no REAL doubts about the Constitutionality of the move, that's all an invention of the Left.

---

The courts disagree. Do you ever plan to address - or even look at - their reasoning ? Do you have any idea of the relevant precedents ? Or is that too much like caring about the truth for you ?

I see that Faith, the traitor, is whining that tyranny has failed again, a victim of its own incompetence.In any sensible analysis we would ask what "emergency" required lifting the stay. In the absence of one, or a clear error of law on the part of the deciding judge, naturally the restraining order should remain. The balance of harms also rather obviously favours leaving the order in place.This result should not be a surprise to anyone, nor should anyone who favours justice and the rule of law be screaming against it.

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.

The decision (PDF)Necessary reading for anyone who wants to argue about the merits.

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.

quote:

---

Another commentator at Infowars is saying the Constitution itself defines the jurisdiction of the President as covering immigration and national security, another fact that puts the court in the wrong.

---

That only proves that commentators at Infowars can't be trusted to understand what they are talking about. The court isn't taking responsibility for immigration or national security. The court is doing its job of resolving a legal controversy - of reviewing the President's decision for compatibility with the Constitution, when requested to do so by - in this case - State governments. Indeed at present the courts are doing less than that, all that is at stake is an injunction preventing sections of the Executive Order from being put into effect until the courts come to a decision.What you are doing is denying the checks and balances of the Constitution, making the false assumption that responsibility equates to total control beyond any legal constraint.

quote:

---

Otherwise I haven't had time to listen/read other conservative opinions. Did catch a caller to a conservative talk show calling the judges "criminal."

​

I give these reports as a public service to information-challenged liberals/lefti

---

Anyone who is unaware of the right-wing threat to liberty is information-challenged indeed. Thank you for providing further evidence of it.

Instead of just getting opinions and choosing the one you like maybe you should try understanding the issues. You should be seriously embarrassed posting nonsense like Message 652