Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

White House expands travel ban to 8 countries...

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

    Well, it's clear that the policy of the last 40 years hasn't prevented them fro developing nukes. It has also not resulted in open war.....
    Now there ya go spoiling the whole thang. How many times have I told you to lay off things like history and facts? SHAME ON YOU!!!
    Last edited by Belva; 09-25-2017, 04:47 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by guido61 View Post

      And what is the issue with Chad? Why are people from THERE suddenly such a threat?


      Obama wouldn't have issued this order.

      Amazingly, we were just as safe under Obama without this travel ban.

      But do you FEEL safer now?
      Actually, Obama started the process that led to this order, including identifying the nations included in the first order. The basis was and always has been the lack of security in those nations.
      "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

        Actually, Obama started the process that led to this order, including identifying the nations included in the first order. The basis was and always has been the lack of security in those nations.


        "identifying the nations" and how you proceed to handle the issue are two completely different things. I don't believe Obama would have issued a similar ban, because I don't believe it is necessary.
        ______________

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DonK View Post
          I have a feeling this wasn't what the libs were expecting, so I'm sure the 9th circuit court of appeals will be back in the picture shortly, preparing to get slapped down by SCOTUS.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.4172c8cb5834

          [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
          Good!

          Hey Dems, Libs, lefties and progressives...time to go to the courts, time to march in the streets

          in the words of the German audience watching the Beatles in Hamburg...MAK SHOW MAK SHOW MAK SHOW

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DonK View Post


            Maybe we should follow Clinton's lead and throw a few more billion at them in exchange for a phony promise to give up their nukes.
            Sarcasm not your strong suit, don.
            To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Belva View Post
              Didn't I see something about N. Korea being added to the list? That's one I agree with. When it's because of someone's religion I'm against such bans.
              North Korea was added so it wouldn't be a ''Muslim Ban'' any more. Never mind that nobody is trying to immigrate from North Korea. Now Trump can point to the inclusion of NK and say ''See, it's not a Muslim ban,'' as if we were supposed to believe him. It also derails the SCOTUS hearing: http://www.startribune.com/new-trave...ing/447740443/.
              Official HCAG “Theory-Challenged Hack”
              Member of the IBANEZ ACOUSTIC ASSASSINS
              Proud Member of The Alvarez Alliance
              Member of the Schecter Society
              Person-2-Person on the Web

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DonK View Post
                White House expands travel ban to 8 countries...


                I have a feeling this wasn't what the libs were expecting, so I'm sure the 9th circuit court of appeals will be back in the picture shortly, preparing to get slapped down by SCOTUS.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.4172c8cb5834

                The Trump administration announced new restrictions Sunday on visitors from eight countries — an expansion of the preexisting travel ban that has spurred fierce legal debates over security, immigration and discrimination.
                In announcing the new rules, officials said they are meant to be both tough and targeted. The move comes on the day the key portion of President Trump’s travel ban, one which bars the issuance of visas to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries, was due to expire.
                If the federal courts get involved again, it will be because the Trump administration wrote a bad, discriminatory executive order again.

                If Congress really wants to pass a useful travel ban, they will ban Trump from traveling.
                Last edited by The Badger; 09-25-2017, 09:54 PM.
                __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
                How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

                Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

                Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

                And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

                Comment


                • #23

                  #4.1

                  RogueGnome commented
                  09-25-2017, 09:25 AM


                  I know that we're expected to have a knee-jerk reaction every time Trump does something or says something or tweets something.
                  Getting old. Or maybe I'm getting old. Amounts to the same thing.


                  Last edited by RogueGnome; 09-25-2017, 09:30 AM.

                  The problem with Trump saying something is that it usually is a knee-jerk reaction on his part.
                  And gets his supporters all fired up over nothing. Are you getting old? Yes, but so are we all.
                  What's gotten even older, though, is Trump's ''lash out at everything without thinking'' act.
                  Last edited by The Badger; 09-25-2017, 09:54 PM.
                  __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
                  How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

                  Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

                  Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

                  And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RogueGnome View Post

                    Sarcasm not your strong suit, don.
                    I'm crushed, just crushed.
                    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

                    Comment


                    • RogueGnome
                      RogueGnome commented
                      Editing a comment
                      You'll get over it, I'm sure. You're a big boy.

                  • #25
                    Originally posted by The Badger View Post

                    If the federal courts get involved again, it will be because the Trump administration wrote a bad, discriminatory executive order again.
                    Well, since that wasn't even the basis of the 9th's misguided ruling, you're not making much sense. Anyone who pays attention knows that the 9th is a mouthpiece for the far left, and not a serious constitutional court (look at their rate of rulings overturned by SCOTUS).

                    As is clear from even a cursory reading, the Constitution clearly gives POTUS the authority to manage immigration issues with or without the approval of Congress, and sets NO LIMITS on the reasoning that may be used to determine such limits. This was and is intentional in the Constitution, as the writers understood that they could not foresee the various legitimate needs that might arise in this respect. The 9th is out of line in this regard - WAY out of line.

                    Second, there is nothing in the actual language of the executive order that does not pass constitutional muster. Nothing. There is no basis in precedent for the reading that the 9th took, taking into account completely disjoint campaign statements. If this were to be allowed, then no president could ever issue any executive order without getting it overruled based on some ancient statement made either by POTUS or a senior advisor. How far back could this go? 1 year? 2 years? 20 years? 40 years?

                    Want to know the real outcome? Wait a few weeks until SCOTUS rules. I have a feeling that you won't be happy with it...but it will be the law.


                    "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

                    Comment


                    • RogueGnome
                      RogueGnome commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I believe they have canceled the hearing. There won't be a SCOTUS decision.
                      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...l-ban-n2386278

                    • SteinbergerHack
                      SteinbergerHack commented
                      Editing a comment
                      From your link:
                      The case surrounding President Trump's authority to ban individuals from entry into the United States will likely continue when new briefs opposing the ban are filed with the Supreme Court. In other words, this is far from over.

                  • #26
                    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

                    Well, since that wasn't even the basis of the 9th's misguided ruling, you're not making much sense. Anyone who pays attention knows that the 9th is a mouthpiece for the far left, and not a serious constitutional court (look at their rate of rulings overturned by SCOTUS).

                    As is clear from even a cursory reading, the Constitution clearly gives POTUS the authority to manage immigration issues with or without the approval of Congress, and sets NO LIMITS on the reasoning that may be used to determine such limits. This was and is intentional in the Constitution, as the writers understood that they could not foresee the various legitimate needs that might arise in this respect. The 9th is out of line in this regard - WAY out of line.

                    Second, there is nothing in the actual language of the executive order that does not pass constitutional muster. Nothing. There is no basis in precedent for the reading that the 9th took, taking into account completely disjoint campaign statements. If this were to be allowed, then no president could ever issue any executive order without getting it overruled based on some ancient statement made either by POTUS or a senior advisor. How far back could this go? 1 year? 2 years? 20 years? 40 years?

                    Want to know the real outcome? Wait a few weeks until SCOTUS rules. I have a feeling that you won't be happy with it...but it will be the law.

                    The 9th Circuit Court and The Atlantic Monthly disagree.

                    For the full article, go here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...el-ban/530088/


                    "First, the panel wrote, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides procedures for a president to follow in limiting immigration; Trump ignored those procedures and thus his order is invalid. Second, the statutes Trump cites in the ban actually don’t give him the substantive authority to discriminate in entry by nationality. Thus the vexing issues of religious discrimination, and of Trump’s “true” intent, don’t arise."

                    "This seems like a fairly sweeping grant of power. But the Ninth Circuit panel concluded (as Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit did in a separate opinion in the earlier case) that the order contains “no sufficient finding … that the entry of the excluded classes would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” "

                    "In the travel ban case, the Ninth Circuit panel in effect combined both approaches, procedure and substance. Procedurally, Trump’s order “makes no finding that nationality alone renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk to the United States” and does not “provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”"
                    There's a good deal more in that article, but what it amounts to is that Trump played fast-and-loose with the laws in invoking his discriminatory travel ban. While he may have based it in law, he did so in such a way that the court found fault with it. Thus, it was badly-enough written to constitute an illegal act. Hence the court striking it down.

                    The point to keep in mind is that the 9th court addressed itself to the ban, not the law. We shall have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says about it. I have a feeling neither of us will be particularly happy with the outcome. But unless and until the SCOTUS rules, all is speculation and the 9th Circuit Court ruling stands.
                    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
                    How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

                    Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

                    Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

                    And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

                    Comment


                    • #27
                      Originally posted by The Badger View Post

                      The 9th Circuit Court and The Atlantic Monthly disagree.

                      There's a good deal more in that article, but what it amounts to is that Trump played fast-and-loose with the laws in invoking his discriminatory travel ban. While he may have based it in law, he did so in such a way that the court found fault with it. Thus, it was badly-enough written to constitute an illegal act. Hence the court striking it down.

                      The point to keep in mind is that the 9th court addressed itself to the ban, not the law. We shall have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says about it. I have a feeling neither of us will be particularly happy with the outcome. But unless and until the SCOTUS rules, all is speculation and the 9th Circuit Court ruling stands.
                      See the law passed by Congress:

                      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUT...E-66-Pg163.pdf

                      Start near the bottom of Page 26.

                      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
                      You may wish to disagree with the law that grants the President this authority, but the text of the law is quite clear that POTUS has the legal authority to do what Trump did. "any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate" is quite clear in meaning, and neither includes nor infers any qualifiers that would restrict that ability.

                      As noted previously, both the 9th Circuit and Atlantic Monthly are HIGHLY biased, and would probably try to overturn or make a case against anything that comes before them attached to any Republican. This does not mean that such action or presentation is well-founded.
                      Last edited by SteinbergerHack; 09-26-2017, 10:14 AM.
                      "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

                      Comment


                      • The Badger
                        The Badger commented
                        Editing a comment
                        My argument is not with the president's authority to make such a declaration, it's how he worded it. That is also the gist of the 9th circuit's opinion. If Trump had gotten it right the first time, there would have been no legal issue and thus no question of it.

                    • #28
                      Is this supposed to stop Terrorism?

                      Terrorists can get passports from anywhere, get off the plane at JFK wearing Yankees TShirts and drinking 40oz sodas, and walk straight through immigration with their holiday visas and tickets to Mickey Mouse land, or wherever, and no one will so much as give them a 2nd glance.

                      Sorry, I forgot. Trump supporters are that stupid.

                      Never mind. Carry on
                      flip the phase

                      Comment


                      • The Badger
                        The Badger commented
                        Editing a comment
                        This isn't an effort to "stop terrorism" so much as it is yet another act by a supreme attention whore to stir up the people who support him. I shall refrain from characterizing them beyond agreeing with your statement about Trump supporters' intellectual capacity.

                    • #29
                      Originally posted by gubu View Post
                      Is this supposed to stop Terrorism?

                      Terrorists can get passports from anywhere, get off the plane at JFK wearing Yankees TShirts and drinking 40oz sodas, and walk straight through immigration with their holiday visas and tickets to Mickey Mouse land, or wherever, and no one will so much as give them a 2nd glance.

                      Sorry, I forgot. Trump supporters are that stupid.

                      Never mind. Carry on
                      Or land in Canada and drive over. Fake passport and all

                      Comment


                      • #30
                        So are those enhanced vetting techniques ready yet?

                        Comment













                        Working...
                        X