Trump's Immigration Ban
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2017, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2017 09:32 PM by GirlyMan.)
Trump's Immigration Ban
So what do you make of this?

On the one hand even though none of those countries are directly responsible for terrorist acts in the US as far as I can tell, all of them are certainly responsible for state-sponsored havoc in other countries. Seems prudent. On the other hand "vetting" is just a euphemism for "we'll take your brain surgeons and rocket scientists" so that seems like a good thing. (Not sure what extreme vetting would be, Hirsch-index?) And apparently it's illegal. Does this qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor deserving of impeachment? Was this the Republican's devious Machiavellian plan all along to put Pence in power? Is psikeyhackr right?

And then of course there's this -

[Image: dan_zpsdf1jur6d.png]

Edit - After rereading, it appears it is perfectly legal for him to ban based on religion instead of nationality. Dunno why he doesn't just do that. He'd have to ban all Muslims regardless of national origin but that's what he promised anyway.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
27-01-2017, 09:54 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(27-01-2017 09:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So what do you make of this?

On the one hand even though none of those countries are directly responsible for terrorist acts in the US as far as I can tell, all of them are certainly responsible for state-sponsored havoc in other countries. Seems prudent. On the other hand "vetting" is just a euphemism for "we'll take your brain surgeons and rocket scientists" so that seems like a good thing. (Not sure what extreme vetting would be, Hirsch-index?) And apparently it's illegal. Does this qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor deserving of impeachment? Was this the Republican's devious Machiavellian plan all along to put Pence in power? Is psikeyhackr right?

And then of course there's this -

[Image: dan_zpsdf1jur6d.png]

Edit - After rereading, it appears it is perfectly legal for him to ban based on religion instead of nationality. Dunno why he doesn't just do that. He'd have to ban all Muslims regardless of national origin but that's what he promised anyway.

But he likes egypt, Saudi arabia, a few others, because he does a lot business with them. He hasn't a problem with "those" muslims. Other ones...I guess he does...


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
27-01-2017, 10:14 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(27-01-2017 09:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So what do you make of this?

On the one hand even though none of those countries are directly responsible for terrorist acts in the US as far as I can tell, all of them are certainly responsible for state-sponsored havoc in other countries. Seems prudent. On the other hand "vetting" is just a euphemism for "we'll take your brain surgeons and rocket scientists" so that seems like a good thing. (Not sure what extreme vetting would be, Hirsch-index?) And apparently it's illegal. Does this qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor deserving of impeachment? Was this the Republican's devious Machiavellian plan all along to put Pence in power? Is psikeyhackr right?

And then of course there's this -

[Image: dan_zpsdf1jur6d.png]

Edit - After rereading, it appears it is perfectly legal for him to ban based on religion instead of nationality. Dunno why he doesn't just do that. He'd have to ban all Muslims regardless of national origin but that's what he promised anyway.

From what I read on the Cato Institute website, they also believe it to be illegal. On it's face the order seems to violate the law. But I've heard a few workarounds. Because he didn't technically ban them permanently, only until a new system can be put into place to properly vet them, he might be within the law. Or because he said specifically christians could still come from those countries, he could argue it was technically a muslim ban and be within the law. I think we all know his intention. Ban muslims from entering. He tried to be PC about it and ended up, most likely, violating the law as written.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 11:30 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
I wonder which country will be first to retaliate and refuse access to Murikans (maybe even targeting christian Murikans)?

I've felt the pain of this when applying for my visa for Pakistan. $$$ Ouch!

Angry

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
27-01-2017, 11:41 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
Quote:all of them are certainly responsible for state-sponsored havoc in other countries.

So are we. In fact, we are the World Champs at it.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Minimalist's post
27-01-2017, 11:41 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
Whether ethical or not, it would be impossible to flat out ban Muslim immigrants without ripping our economy apart.

As for bans on certain countries, again ethical considerations aside, in a period where refugees are leaving volatile countries whether they have a legal destination or not we lose leverage with countries whose geographical location forces them into a position to bear the burden. Whether that leverage is more valuable than the resources we'd expend caring for the refugees and dealing with any bad apples that might slip through is the question.

Personally, as much difficulty as I have empathizing towards people in the first place, I generally find I'd rather hang out with refugees from fucked up places than with the average John Doe. At least the conversation is more interesting than listening to someone ramble on about the latest football game or some other arbitrary thing that I'm supposed to pretend like I give a shit about in order to fit in but don't.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like yakherder's post
28-01-2017, 12:38 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
(27-01-2017 11:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I wonder which country will be first to retaliate and refuse access to Murikans (maybe even targeting christian Murikans)?

I've felt the pain of this when applying for my visa for Pakistan. $$$ Ouch!

Angry

That is a valid question. He talked about raising the tariff to Mexico until business people pointed out all the goods they import from mexico and growers pointed out how many of our food stuffs is exported there. That's the other thing, he's supposed to be such a great businessman, shouldn't have reasoned that one out himself instead of running his mouth? He's got the impulse control of 14 year old on the Youtube comment section or 4Chan.

The businesses would have to raise prices to cover their own increased price on goods from Mexico. There's nothing stopping Mexico from imposing an higher tariff on the stuff we send there and could actually cancel agreements.

Then there is the tourism issue with many countries. It used to be most people from other countries had to get a visa to enter the US, but many didn't require the same of US citizens traveling to their countries. I always found that strange. That did change with the Visa Waiver Program, which did make it more fair. But if you've traveled to the middle east, then you can't apply for the waiver and are forced to get a visa.

I wonder if his mouth continues to go the way it has, how long it will be before countries start floating the idea of sanctions or even embargos to this country. I remember the oil embargo in the 70s quite vividly.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
28-01-2017, 06:17 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
Given that he's explicitly said Christians from those countries should be allowed in, I think he's violated the Constitution. Yet again. (third or fourth time this week, right?)

And of course Muslims from Saudi Arabia, etc., are welcome.

All terrorist organizations need to do is take a few meetings with Don Jr. and Eric, floating the idea of a Dick Tower in their homeland. The terrorists will be able to fly straight to DC and plot at their leisure in puppet's hotel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
28-01-2017, 06:49 AM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
I didn't have any trouble being permitted to come to the US because my first husband was American. That's been the law, and it hasn't changed. Does that mean spouses from those countries can or cannot come? What happens to the laws already in place? They are pretty strict, anyway.

Historically, Americans have always been able to bring home brides from any country they were occupying or fighting in.

Once I was here I realized that I was not at all welcome as German. Lots of discrimination back then, still from WW2. Even though I was born after the war was over. It's a scary thing, living where people don't like you. This has all but disappeared for Germans here over the decades.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: Trump's Immigration Ban
The Verge: Breaking News, Federal Court halts Trump's immigration ban

Quote:The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay halting President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the US from seven majority-Muslim countries tonight, following widespread protests at airports around the country.

The court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the ACLU on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who were denied entry to the US upon landing at JFK airport in New York City and detained indefinitely by Customs and Border Patrol. Darweesh spent a decade working for the United States military in Iraq as an interpreter and engineer and had been granted an entry visa after background checks; Alshawi had been granted a visa in order to join his wife and son who are already permanent residents of the US after their similar service with the US military.

The court specifically ruled on Darweesh and Alshawi’s petition; the ACLU will have to include all other similarly-affected immigrants as part of a class action to have it apply more broadly. But the point of a stay is to preserve the status quo while a permanent ruling is made — something the judge specifically reminded the lawyers for the goverment in the courtroom. And as the tweet from the National Immigration Law Center’s Jackie Vimo indicates above, there is a likelihood of class certification.

Trump’s executive order halts all immigration from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria. The ban was issued late on Friday, leading to widespread confusion about how it would be implemented and enforced, chaos as those decisions were made quickly and without a great deal of transparency, and controversy as the essential legality of a ban that effectively targets Muslims was called into question.

Protests have erupted at airports around the country in response to the ban, and the tech industry has signaled significant opposition to it in tones ranging from measured to morally outraged.

The court’s stay is temporary and only affects people currently detained and those in transit — the court can’t rule on the overarching constitutionality of the executive order, just rule to preserve the status quo. It’s clear that the White House will argue to have the executive order reinstated as soon as possible while it fights to show the ban is constitutional.

The first step in a long fight.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Shai Hulud's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: