|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,776 Year: 1,098/6,935 Month: 379/719 Week: 21/146 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1770 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
The decision (PDF)
Necessary reading for anyone who wants to argue about the merits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 398 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 165 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 165 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 494 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 494 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So let me understand. Most here want Muslims to be free to enter the country with little or no vetting? Any restrictions at all?
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.
Same with people crossing our southern border? No deportations, some deportions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 165 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8716 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 737 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
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.... 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? It isn't black and white. The court has to decide on a shade of gray. That's mitigation.
NoNukes writes:
Justification is not an eraser.
What do you think justification means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1770 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1830 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025