Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

If Trump is not granted complete deference then obviously the courts can decide that he is wrong or even lying. And do you really want a President to be able to push through orders by falsely claiming National Security concerns ?

So you do live in a cave?But Faith, even if in your troglodyte habitation you are cut off from all other forms of news, surely you could have found out what's going on by reading this thread and noticing what everyone's talking about.

Certainly some of the Constitutional laws ought to apply universally, such as right to property, life and liberty, no matter who the person is or where. The problem I keep having is that it implies anyone has a right to be here or a right to enter, which can't possibly be the case. .I already said I would expect green card and visa holders to be exempted from the travel ban but there may be legal reasons why they aren't exempted. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Trump administration has already walked back on the issue of Green Card holders, so there doesn't seem any reason to withhold judgement on that. The attempt to prevent Green Card holders entering the country was illegal.So far the courts have held that it is likely that the same applies to those who hold visas.

quote:

---

No point in taking the opinion of anyone here as the truth.

---

Perhaps, then, you will stop trying to push your opinions as the truth - and shouting at and abusing anyone who disagrees.

I'm not interested in the exceptions, only in the order against admitting foreigners who have no right to be here. The exceptions are a red herring in that context.

Fine, I agree, and that's pretty much what I figured had to be the case as I said earlier, but it's a red herring. The order isn't about them, it's about people who have no such prior right to be here.The idi/ocies I was screaming at remain idi/ocies: there is no right for any foreign national to be here; they do not have a right to US legal services if they are here illegally or have not been given a legal pass to come into the country. Or they shouldn't have, if some mindless Leftist court said they do. Anyone anywhere has the basic human rights to life, liberty, property etc. I'm not arguing about those things, only about who can enter the country and take up residence here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Certainly some of the Constitutional laws ought to apply universally, such as right to property, life and liberty, no matter who the person is or where. The problem I keep having is that it implies anyone has a right to be here or a right to enter, which can't possibly be the case. .

---

It certainly does not imply any such thing. How can you miss the point that we have been talking about Due Process rights all along ?The most that can be claimed is that there is a right for applications for admission to be reasonably examined (and a lot of objections do not even go that far!). Nobody is saying that such applications cannot be rejected for good cause. Most of the concern is about revoking permission that has already been granted - especially when it is sudden, without warning and almost certainly with no prospect of compensation.

quote:

---

Fine, I agree, and that's pretty much what I figured had to be the case as I said earlier, but it's a red herring. The order isn't about them, it's about people who have no such prior right to be here.

---

It is rather clear that at least some in the White House intended the order to cover Green Card holders. It is also absolutely clear that it is intended to include people with visas, even those who were already in the air at the time the order was put into force - without warning. It's not a red herring, it is the heart of the objections against the order.

No. There's been all this crazed carrying on about discrimination on the basis of religion and other provisions of the Constitution against people wanting to enter the country as if all that applies to foreign noncitizens. IT DOES NOT. I was rightly screaming about that. I haven't been arguing about visas or green cards or due process because I don't care about those things, only about this ridiculous idea that we can't discriminate on any grounds whatever against anybody whatever who wants to enter the country. The subject keeps getting changed and it gets confusing to follow it all, but that's the main utter stu/pidity I've been focused on.

Again: the question that everyone else in the world is talking about, and the question decided by the courts, is whether those people who had already been granted the right to enter could exercise that right.Apparently you agree that they should be able to. Maybe you're one of those "wacko liberals" and "mindless Leftist courts" I've been hearing about lately.

I could not care less. Either those restrictions are legal or they are not. That's not what I've been arguing about.

It's a question of what's legal, that's all, and I don't care about it. It's either legal or it's not and it will be sorted out eventually. I've been arguing about other totally wacko claims people have been making about discrimination on religious grounds and that sort of thing.

You were certainly screaming against the idea of Due Process rights.And it sounds as if you still reject them:

quote:

---

...only about this ridiculous idea that we can't discriminate on any grounds whatever against anybody whatever who wants to enter the country.

---

quote:

---

The subject keeps getting changed and it gets confusing to follow it all, but that's the main utter stu/pidity I've been focused on.

---

The main subject has always been people with Green Cards or visas. You may not like the fact that you have come around and started agreeing with "wacko liberals" and "insane leftists" on that point but that is what has happened. So please spare us this attempt at revisionism when there is a clear record available.

quote:

---

I could not care less. Either those restrictions are legal or they are not. That's not what I've been arguing about.

---

The record of this thread shows otherwise.

Oh, and Trump is right about the lying polls that put his approval rating so low. Definitely fake news. Just as the polls lied about the popularity of the candidates before the election, they are lying about this too. They must be interviewing a great preponderance of liberals. His popularity is very high with conservatives.I think a couple of polls got it closer to right, Reuters and Rasmussen? 51% or something like that.Trump was right to object because it's true that the majority DO want border security and extreme vetting. That's why we voted for him and why would we change our minds? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.