Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Well that is a massive evasion.First, there is no justification for the immediate halt to entry other than "foreigners don't have rights." I'd expect a bit more when people with valid documents are being turned back at U.S. airports. The more so since the White House failed to provide clear guidance. What's the rush ? Why not just suspend issuing visas, for instance ?And really if the majority of Americans feel that it is acceptable to treat people badly just for coming from the wrong country then it is a great shame on America.Second, I will note that the examples of terrorists given are not even linked to the countries affected by the ban. Given the lack of any serious analysis I can hardly say that it supports the idea that an immediate ban - or any ban at all - is necessary. You can hardly say that it is a major problem without numbers - especially when you are counting the risk that their children might become radicalised.Finally simply saying that the list came from the Obama administration is only going to work on people who feel that the Obama administration could do no wrong. The more so since we do not know the purpose or context of this list. It certainly does not seem to reflect the risk of terrorists entering the country (why not Saudi Arabia ?).

If there is a real threat that justifies such drastic action I haven't seen any evidence of it. And if there were then why appeal to the idea that your government can do what it likes to foreigners ?. And if you thought about it, you might realise that the wrongs you do could come back to haunt you. Grievances are one of the roads to radicalisation, for one thing.And let us be honest. There is no good link between nationality and terrorism - let alone with the list of nations banned, as even your OP showed.

If you have to dismiss an obvious fact as "snowflakey" it just shows that you are plain flakey. If you are prepared to use the idea that the children of the people you are mistreating *might* become terrorists as part of the excuse for their mistreatment you might at least consider the effects of that mistreatment.And simply demonising Islam is no answer. By doing that you are only helping the terrorists to recruit others. If you go around treating people as enemies for no good reason you can hardly be surprised if you turn some of them into enemies.

It is no more "cowardly" than refusing to admit people who have already been screened, and have arrived in the US with all the paperwork. If your attempt to protect against the assumed threat is counterproductive then it is hardly sensible - even before we consider the rights and wrongs.The average Muslim is not a terrorist, nor likely to become one.

So, is anyone tempted to join Faith in her crusade against righteousness ? Or is her propaganda blitz a failure ?

Glasgow vet caught in US flight banSeriously ? A veterinary student studying for a PhD in Glasgow isn't allowed to fly home via New York ?Want to explain why it is necessary ?

OK Faith, explain why transit visas already issued couldn't be honoured. It doesn't seem like asking an awful lot, does it ?

(sorry - intended to reply to Faith. Message 42 )The important question - which applies equally to both cases - is whether a judge may issue an injunction which (temporarily, at least) prevents an Executive Order being carried out.There is no need to review their decisions - that is for the higher courts.So it comes down to the authority of judges. Both judges believe that they have that power. If you disagree then perhaps you should offer a bit more than your personal opinion - given that judges ought to know the law rather better than you.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

In my view it is going too far to say that Trump has definitely broken the law, but obviously the judge thinks it is highly likely that deporting these people on arrival, as Trump intended would have broken the law.You don't even have to read most of the decision: The point of the ruling is that Trump cannot arbitrarily order that people who have been granted the right to enter the country be forbidden. Due process must be followed.

quote:

---

I would agree that if you have the legal documentation to be here, say a Green Card, but are still technically an alien, then the Executive Order would allow you to be forbidden to enter upon arrival, and, that would be unfair because you technically should be allowed due process.

---

I would say that it is certainly morally dubious and almost certainly legally dubious to say that the Government can do whatever it likes to non-citizens. It would be a major flaw in the legal system if it were true.Given that there was already enhanced scrutiny for people coming from the affected countries and in the absence of any threat that necessitated the immediate imposition of the ban it is hard to say that Trump's action is at all justified. Therefore I find it credible that Trump's precipitate action was, in fact, illegal.

That is an odd point of view. If the Constitution says that the government can't do something should we always read "except to non-citizens" into it ?

quote:

---

Nobody is saying "do whatever it likes", but I don't think we have the sovereignty to grant our Constitutional rights to people in other countries

---

First, the court cases involve people arriving in the U.S. and under U.S. jurisdiction. And it is absurd to suggest that the U.S. government lacks sovereignty over its own unilateral decisions.If the Executive Order violates rights granted under the Constitution - and we have already seen that the Constitution does grant some rights - rights that seem relevant - to anybody within U.S. jurisdiction then it is breaking the law. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

quote:

---

I wasn't suggesting that, I was just sayin'.

---

You were just saying that the U.S. Government lacked sovereignty to grant constitutional rights to people in other places - even when the actual dispute involved people in the U.S. and even though the U.S. government can certainly grant rights with respect to its own actions. If you want to spout irrelevancies you could at least have the grace to admit that they are utterly irrelevant to the points you are supposedly replying to.

quote:

---

Is signing an Executive Order that ends up being determined to be unconstitutional illegal

---

The order itself is certainly illegal. Going beyond that if, say, the legalities were ignored for the sake of grandstanding - and it seems pretty likely to me that is the case - I would certainly hope that signing would be illegal.

quote:

---

Geez, grant me a little charity here, you really think I would talk about foreign sovereignty in regards to something here on our soil?

---

I have been giving you plenty of charity. In fact the question of legality - which you were supposedly addressing - centred on events on U.S. soil. Moreover, as I pointed out, it was absurd even when addressing people who had yet to fly in.

quote:

---

What if it didn't use the term "aliens" and instead just spoke of refugees?

---

If you want charity, using out of context quotes is not a good way to get it.I will repeat my actual point, an Executive Order which violates constitutional rights is illegal. Now, maybe the circumstances are such that if Trump did only ban refugees it would not violate any constitutional rights - or other legal rights - but that would be more important than the wording. And I do not claim an adequate understanding of U.S. Law to address the issue.

quote:

---

What makes that seem so likely?

---

The way that the order was rushed into effect. There is simply no reason why it had to be done that way.

quote:

---

Seems like a pretty tough case to make.

---

Not really. Is it not held that ignorance of the law is no excuse ? Even if there are exceptions I do not think that wilful neglect of the law can be considered a valid excuse for issuing an illegal order.

Obama didn't come up with the list.The original four were apparently attached to a must-pass spending bill by a Republican and the other three were added by the DHS. All we can say is that Obama didn't think it worth vetoing an important bill just to reject the rider. Snopes has the story.