Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

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.

Just to state my current view of this: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.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.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.4.) It does seem to me that the law is quite clear and that all the qualifications are more politically than legally motivated.5.) So at this point I'm waiting to see if a good clear conservative discussion of all the supposed hangups comes along.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Has the order been withdrawn and/or changed? If not, then it still covers green card and visa holders. Trump wants the order to cover current visa holders, so that point has not been resolved.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why should it need to be resolved? I haven't seen any legal reason why current visa holders shouldn't be restricted under the ban too.

It has NOT been "explained" how the Constitution applies to any aliens OUTSIDE wanting to come in. However, I agree that basic human rights are to be observed toward any human beings, but that's a small part of the Constitution and in some sense doesn't need to be dictated by the Constitution. Do remember of course that no Muslim country would grant even that much to anyone seeking to enter. The idea that due process is owed to ALIENS SEEKING ENTRY TO OUR COUNTRY makes no sense to me whatever. Due process COSTS US MONEY. This is like someone sitting on the curb in front of your house wanting to enter your house, and you being required to pay for legal costs to argue why they should not. This makes no sense. Or for illegal aliens, like someone who has broken into your house and you being required to show legally why they have no right to be there. This is nuts. 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've "seen" no such thing. What I've seen is a bunch of speculation without any actual proof of anything. The only actual legal facts do not apply: the 14th amendment because it is about aliens already in the country; and the 1965 law about selecting nations because Obama's order selected nations and nobody objected. I suspect that is a law that should be repealed anyway. But I'll wait for some good conservative opinion about these things. Your opinion counts for nothing to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

An article that describes the immigration ban as malevolent and incompetent in the first sentence should be thrown in the trash. 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? They have done this all over Asia already -- with a good dose of violent jihad to improve the case. They are murdering people in Africa for not being Muslims. This thinking is suicidally idi/otic. And Harvard Law School is Left of Left.Why is it that the Left wants to kill America?: Why is it that the Left wants to come under Sharia Law? Are you under the delusion that it won't happen? What's going on here? Why should I believe this? And considering what I said above about Islam's agenda it has nothing to do with the overarching danger of Islam anyway. Muslims already in the country are a ticking time bomb and the idi/ot Left refuses to see it, or sees it and for some crazy reason doesn't want to do anything about it. 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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The belief that people should be killed because of their religious beliefs, or lack of them, is in direct conflict with the part of the constitution it's being suggested has been contravened. If the judges are going to assess risk to life, which, you say, can be used to justify religious discrimination, assessing the proportion of the religious adherents who hold such beliefs is certainly relevant. I'm not being pedantic. While Faith is greatly exaggerating the evils of Islam, it's important that others don't lean too far the other way. I questioned your "nearly all" with the example of the young Brits being 36% in favour of apostate killing. 64% is most, but it is not "nearly all." Had you said "most" originally, I wouldn't have disagreed.Understanding such differences is utterly necessary for the purposes of this debate.The only relevant thing we might get a "most" for is theocracy. Judging by the last free election in Egypt, that's a distinct possibility in the seven nations concerned at present, and in the entire Muslim world. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and someone pointed out that America already has many Christian believers in the supremacy of their God's laws, but that's hardly an argument for importing more.Is Islam close to being an unconstitutional religion? I'd answer "no", because Islam isn't really anything specific. There are so many different interpretations and so many contradictions in the scriptures that we can't really say what it is.However, there are certainly unconstitutional interpretations, and they are certainly fairly popular, and they certainly can be lethal. Exactly. And this is where the judges are going to have to assess the group concerned, and will have to think in vague terms like "some" , "most" and "nearly all". Mine maybe more to do with the idea that even if it did clearly discriminate against Muslims (like Trump's original suggestion) that still wouldn't make it unconstitutional because it could be justified; something you seem to agree with. That's why I thought that there might be too much rejoicing amongst some of the wacko liberals around here, although they will still probably be able to rejoice, because, as I've pointed out to Faith, ultimately economic considerations will come into play, and they will trump Donald. To me, that seems similar to what you describe as me saying that the U.S. discriminates anyway. Of course it has to be justified, but the types of belief that I've discussed above make it quite easy to do so where Islam is concerned. That 36% apostate killers would be compatible with the 17th century West, but isn't with the 21st, 20th or 19th. Our 18th century just didn't happen in the Islamic world, and it's arguably suffering from that fact.

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 ?

If you're expressing highly subjective opinions about Muslims and Islam, that doesn't make you the entire topic, but it does tend to make you a part of it. Note that I've brought up myself and my own experiences in Muslim countries as well, because we can't be purely objective on subjects like this. You just compared them. Are you saying that you disagree with traditional Muslim views on the things I mentioned earlier, like fornication, same sex relationships and traditional family values? Isn't prayer important to you? Isn't there only one true God? Don't you consider it wrong to steal the property of others, and good to give to charity? Are all these things superficial to you? Really? Likely? How did you find this out? Why aren't I dead? Was I one of the lucky minority? No-one even hit me! Didn't you know that there are Westerners living in all majority Muslim countries? Because some get killed doesn't make it likely. Some get struck by lightning.You say you are not the topic, but if you are making up your own fantasy "Islamic World" and expecting others to discuss it, the head in which that world exists inevitably becomes part of the topic. If he'd been in Vietnam, especially the north, in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war, he'd have been at very high risk of being slaughtered by irate Buddhists or communists. But if he had visited the old communist Eastern Europe or another Buddhist country (I've visited both) he would have been fine.Tell me, how do you know how much I know about the history of Islam? Is it likely that someone who has spent a lot of time in Muslim countries would never have got curious and would know "nothing" of Islamic history? Is this your subjective world of make believe sneaking into the topic again? See the bit about Vietnam. It might be worth remembering that comment on economics as things pan out over the next few months. Money makes the world go round, as they say, much more than law and religion.

Indeed, the key words being "Criminal Code". It is not a "natural right". It is a defense that can be used if YOU are charged with a crime.

Say what?I answered your question as asked. As for what you "haven't seen", you have demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of making any constitutional analysis, and you don't trust the ones you can find.Trump has to resolve the issue because it has been raised in court and an injunction has been issued based on the court's reading of the law. Not your reading which ignores the constitution and the fact that even green card holders and visa holders have a right to due process, but the court's reading.