Immigration Ban

[RedDenver]

Nothing matters, because this has never been about policy positions for those people. Trump is their god and their religion. Anything in support of our Great Leader.

 

Tell me I'm wrong, guys. But remember that we'll hold you to your claims.

From my perspective, the checks and balances have quashed this ban, so I'm less interested in holding people to account. I'd really like to know what they think and if their positions have changed at all.

[knapplc]

"Loose Lips Sink Ships"

 

Shut up, Donald. You're your own worst enemy.

 

[Moiraine]

Why do Republicans want to reduce regulation on corporations and reduce their taxes, but want to burden them with immigration laws?

 

Immigrants can't get jobs without someone hiring them. Creating laws forcing companies to give preference to Americans is the same as regulating them.

[knapplc]

He's either colossally stupid or this is all a diversionary tactic and he never wanted the travel ban to go into effect.

 

[knapplc]

Dumbass.

 

 

[QMany]

Keep tweeting, Drumpf!

[knapplc]

Trump won.

Supreme Court partially revives Trump's foreign travel ban, will hear case in the fall

The Supreme Court handed President Trump a victory Monday by reviving part of his disputed ban on foreign travelers from six Muslim-majority nations.

The justices largely rejected a series of lower court orders that had blocked Trump’s policy from taking effect.

The justices said the travel ban may go into effect, except for “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse or close relative.

The court said foreign travelers must demonstrate an existing relationship with the United States to be exempt from the ban.

"The student from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity," the court said. "So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience." But this would not extend to other foreigners who lack this connection.

This will have the effect of narrowing Trump’s order while retaining part of it.

The court said it would hear the legal dispute in the fall, but acknowledged the case may be moot by then because the 90-day ban will have expired.

 

 

 

It's already been well past the original 90-day period that Trump wanted. Nothing has happened, nothing has been done to make us safer.

 

This is an atrocious decision, with real, damaging human impact.

[BigRedBuster]

Yeah....the "90 day" part of that makes no sense.

[knapplc]

The wording on this Statement isn't temporary, and it's clear that this is a long-term ban in Trump's mind. Nothing about this says he has any intention of lifting the ban.

 

There are no benchmarks, no reasons for the ban or plans to lift it, nothing. He's working to make America an isolationist country.

 

If you think he's going to stop here, you're crazy.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Trump won.

 

 

Supreme Court partially revives Trump's foreign travel ban, will hear case in the fall

 

The Supreme Court handed President Trump a victory Monday by reviving part of his disputed ban on foreign travelers from six Muslim-majority nations.

 

The justices largely rejected a series of lower court orders that had blocked Trump’s policy from taking effect.

 

The justices said the travel ban may go into effect, except for “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse or close relative.

 

The court said foreign travelers must demonstrate an existing relationship with the United States to be exempt from the ban.

 

"The student from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity," the court said. "So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience." But this would not extend to other foreigners who lack this connection.

 

This will have the effect of narrowing Trump’s order while retaining part of it.

 

The court said it would hear the legal dispute in the fall, but acknowledged the case may be moot by then because the 90-day ban will have expired.

 

 

 

It's already been well past the original 90-day period that Trump wanted. Nothing has happened, nothing has been done to make us safer.

 

This is an atrocious decision, with real, damaging human impact.

 

Yeah. This is a gigantic f#$& you to refugees and other peaceful foreigners.

 

This is outrageous.

[zoogs]

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.

 

They would have put the entire order into effect immediately.

[funhusker]

Thinking hypothetically:

 

"If" SCOTUS allows Trump's ban to take full effect

 

and

 

"If" SCOTUS allows businesses to discriminate against homosexuals because of "religious beliefs."

 

Would it follow logic for churches to sue for the right to bring in refugees? They would be denied the opportunity to practice their beliefs as they see fit by helping people.

[TGHusker]

Justice Thomas:

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and that it will suffer irreparable harm with any interference. Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

So I'm trying to figure out the real balance between security and entry that Thomas notes in the quote above. Let's be honest - security is vitally important in todays world while at the same time our whole national identity is based on liberty to the down trodden. I'm struggling to figure out the correct balance. My concern as noted above by others is that this temporary ban gets extended to.... years in practice. While Trump used the ban as an excuse to get immigration and security issues reviewed, we should be done with that review - unless they were doing nothing the whole time this was in court. Now it will be used as a ruse to continue the practice. Yes, I don't want us to become London and Paris wt terrorist attacks happening regularly but I don't want to de-evolve into the Iron Curtain either. It was give me Liberty or Give me Death not Give me impenetrable security or death.

[zoogs]

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are all 'respected jurists' in a way that's probably hard to argue. But what's going to happen when the Court is packed with these kinds of 'respected jurists'?

 

When we rubber stamp transformative brutality it'll be through the votes of a lot of these 'respectable' people. How do we protect against that?

[funhusker]

Justice Thomas:

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and that it will suffer irreparable harm with any interference. Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

So I'm trying to figure out the real balance between security and entry that Thomas notes in the quote above. Let's be honest - security is vitally important in todays world while at the same time our whole national identity is based on liberty to the down trodden. I'm struggling to figure out the correct balance. My concern as noted above by others is that this temporary ban gets extended to.... years in practice. While Trump used the ban as an excuse to get immigration and security issues reviewed, we should be done with that review - unless they were doing nothing the whole time this was in court. Now it will be used as a ruse to continue the practice. Yes, I don't want us to become London and Paris wt terrorist attacks happening regularly but I don't want to de-evolve into the Iron Curtain either. It was give me Liberty or Give me Death not Give me impenetrable security or death.

To the bolded: what an absolute crock of sh#t!!!

 

Terrorism is not a "national security" issue any more than the guy who killed a bunch of first graders, or the guy who shot church goers in South Carolina. ISIS or any other terrorist group is not going to overthrow the United States by committing these acts, however they can and will do harm to people out in public. The same type of harm committed by a gun wielding madman. If we are willing to change our identity to preserve "national security", then maybe we ought to look into our identity about gun ownership and be okay with any "hardship" a gun purchaser may have to go through.