Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Glengarry

Supreme Court allows President Trump’s travel ban on 6 Muslim-majority countries to go fully into effect

52 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, songfourone said:

The Trump tax cuts is law?

Do tell.

Travel ban stands with many challenges in the wings.

Supreme nom was stolen by the whiny pubs.  

So much whining and very little winning.

 

Sorry you didn't like the factual answers.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saticon3 said:

Really not the issue, more important at this point is end to some of the usurpation of Presidential powers that the lower courts have allowed since Trump took office. We can expect a lot more rulings like this when cases reach adult court where even some of of the liberal justices at least follow the constitution and rule of law in clear cut matters- unlike the partisan liberal anti-Trumpers that make up way too much of the lower federal courts- who have simply ruled against Trump, the constitution, law and precedent be damned. Trump is changing the federal judiciary day by day-- way too slow, but, we'll get there. 

Excellent points, factual and accurate.  The 9th must be getting tired of having it's bottom spanked by the grown ups on SCOTUS, as they are overturned more than any other Circuit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent news. President Trump is keeping his campaign promises to keep America safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ivanbalt said:

They may be a backwards theocracy, but how is Iran a failed governing structure?

A reasonable question.

Nation states have an obligation to protect their citizens and to ensure that their territory, political structure and resources are not utilized to harm other states.  Iran clearly uses its resources and political structures to visit harm upon other nations.  Why should we trust that Iran’s bureaucracy will provide honest and accurate information about a potential  visitor to the US from that state, when their stated political objective is the destruction of the “Great Satan”? 

That is what the “extreme vetting” is all about; the inability to trust that Iran will honor its international law commitments surrounding emigration/visit issues.  Yemen, Sudan are states unable to provide this information accurately because thier bureaucracy is so incompetent.  Iran is unable to provide such information accurately out a willful intent to deceive.  That is what makes them a “failed governing structure”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

A reasonable question.

Nation states have an obligation to protect their citizens and to ensure that their territory, political structure and resources are not utilized to harm other states.  Iran clearly uses its resources and political structures to visit harm upon other nations.  Why should we trust that Iran’s bureaucracy will provide honest and accurate information about a potential  visitor to the US from that state, when their stated political objective is the destruction of the “Great Satan”? 

That is what the “extreme vetting” is all about; the inability to trust that Iran will honor its international law commitments surrounding emigration/visit issues.  Yemen, Sudan are states unable to provide this information accurately because thier bureaucracy is so incompetent.  Iran is unable to provide such information accurately out a willful intent to deceive.  That is what makes them a “failed governing structure”.

Can we trust Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? 

The governments in both countries aided Al Qaeda and the Taliban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, soulflower said:

Can we trust Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? 

The governments in both countries aided Al Qaeda and the Taliban

Good God, no!  Should both nations be on there?  I think so. 

Why aren't they? Certainly in Saudi's case, there are economic and political considerations.  Perhaps there is a sense that Saudi can act as our proxy counter to Iran (shades of the Cold War).  Perhaps there is a concern that dropping Saudi would affect the oil market and from there, the economy overall.  Both are valid reasons for not including Saudi on the list, however well deserved it may be.

Why is Pakistan not on the list.  Because they are a nuclear power and they are politically as crazy as North Korea.  The last thing we need in this world is for Pakistan and India to get into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Good God, no!  Should both nations be on there?  I think so. 

Why aren't they? Certainly in Saudi's case, there are economic and political considerations.  Perhaps there is a sense that Saudi can act as our proxy counter to Iran (shades of the Cold War).  Perhaps there is a concern that dropping Saudi would affect the oil market and from there, the economy overall.  Both are valid reasons for not including Saudi on the list, however well deserved it may be.

Why is Pakistan not on the list.  Because they are a nuclear power and they are politically as crazy as North Korea.  The last thing we need in this world is for Pakistan and India to get into it.

So basically the list is political and not about protecting this country?  And to your point about Iran, it's not like they've been flooding this country with terrorists over the years.  Spies maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ivanbalt said:

So basically the list is political and not about protecting this country? 

So why did the Obama administration choose those countries when it made the list back in 2015? 

Quote

 

The travel part of Trump’s order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.

The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.

The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ivanbalt said:

So basically the list Obama created was political and not about protecting this country?

You tell me.

I certainly have not been able to find a single court case filed by an aggrieved party, nor any injunction asked by any State Attorney General in Federal Court, when President Obama (Democrat) named these 7 majority Muslim countries to his list of restricted travel origins, unlike when President Trump (Republican) used the same 7.

Edited by Glengarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Glengarry said:

So why did the Obama administration choose those countries when it made the list back in 2015? 

 

It addressed weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program

At the time, there was concern that European, American, and Canadian nationals who traveled to Syria and other hot spots to commit terrorism could easily slip into the US. 

It didn’t Ban citizens from any country. It just put additional requirements on people who wouldn’t normally need a Visa to enter the US

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Glengarry said:

You tell me.

I certainly have not been able to find a single court case filed by an aggrieved party, nor any injunction asked by any State Attorney General in Federal Court, when President Obama (Democrat) named these 7 majority Muslim countries to his list of restricted travel origins, unlike when President Trump (Republican) used the same 7.

The Law you’re referring to addressed weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program

At the time, there was concern that European, American, and Canadian nationals who traveled to Syria and other hot spots to commit terrorism could easily slip into the US. 

It didn’t Ban citizens from any country. It just put additional requirements on people who wouldn’t normally need a Visa to enter the US. You can call it “Extreme Vetting”

https://www.npr.org/2015/11/30/457889016/post-paris-obama-administration-changes-visa-waiver-program

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, soulflower said:

The Law you’re referring to addressed weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program

At the time, there was concern that European, American, and Canadian nationals who traveled to Syria and other hot spots to commit terrorism could easily slip into the US. 

It didn’t Ban citizens from any country. It just put additional requirements on people who wouldn’t normally need a Visa to enter the US. You can call it “Extreme Vetting”

https://www.npr.org/2015/11/30/457889016/post-paris-obama-administration-changes-visa-waiver-program

You have the patience of a Saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ivanbalt said:

So basically the list is political and not about protecting this country?  And to your point about Iran, it's not like they've been flooding this country with terrorists over the years.  Spies maybe.

Politics is a consideration in virtually every action that involves a foreign nation.  That Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not included in the travel list is likely because there is a political calculus that suggests it is to their benefit to work to keep threats from going to the US from their states and that they have a working bureaucracy capable of providing at least reasonably accurate information.

Yemen cannot do that; Sudan cannot do that.

As far as Iran goes, that they have not been “flooding this country” with terrorists is not a valid statement.  That none have created a problem as yet is more accurate.  And how is that working to keep spies out is not “protecting this country”?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Politics is a consideration in virtually every action that involves a foreign nation.  That Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not included in the travel list is likely because there is a political calculus that suggests it is to their benefit to work to keep threats from going to the US from their states and that they have a working bureaucracy capable of providing at least reasonably accurate information.

Yemen cannot do that; Sudan cannot do that.

As far as Iran goes, that they have not been “flooding this country” with terrorists is not a valid statement.  That none have created a problem as yet is more accurate.  And how is that working to keep spies out is not “protecting this country”?

 

Name one terror attack against the US homeland committed by Iran

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soulflower said:

Name one terror attack against the US homeland committed by Iran

I’ve already agreed with you SF.  I know of no terror attacks in the US that tie back to Iran.  

Now, you guarantee me that there are no Iranian sponsored people in the US here, or coming to the US, solely to do harm in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I’ve already agreed with you SF.  I know of no terror attacks in the US that tie back to Iran.  

Now, you guarantee me that there are no Iranian sponsored people in the US here, or coming to the US, solely to do harm in the future.

I’m sure that Iran has spies in the US. Nearly every country does.

They may even have terror cells but the terrorists they support don’t typically do attacks outside the Middle East...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 5:30 AM, hst2 said:

A curious "win" to say the least.

The policy is pointless, other than to be be mean and racist, which his base loves.

Is it just that the baby got his way? Is that the victory?

If it's true that the president has the constitutional right to ban anyone he wants, why wouldn't he have it to allow people to stay? After all, Congress doesnt allocate the money to deport everyone who is here illegally,  so if the president can unilaterally decide some people, because if who they are, are an inherent danger and can't come in, why can't he simply make the unilateral decision that the Dreamers can stay? He seemed to agree with this the first 8 months of his term, woke up one day to find himself embroiled deeper in scandal and lashed out at those least able to defend themselves. 

Ah, the life of an emotionally stunted bully who happens to he president.

well, at least you get the central point, while so many others are arguing who should be on the list , who should be off, what countries should be on, which should be off, what criteria should be used-- all fair subjects for healthy debate, but the point is, it is The President who gets to decide- not some liberal state's AG's, not the immigrant lobby, not the dems in Congress, and not the shopped - for lib judges, that typify the 9th circuit, but The President.  I think we will see many more such assertions/reaffirmations of Presidential power. 

But, really, this came as no surprise to any objective person who believes in the rule of law and the constitution. Even Kagan, Breyer and Kennedy sided with the Administration. I'm amazed the other two didn't as well, but, I guess maybe they're libs of the libbest.

Edited by Saticon3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saticon3 said:

well, at least you get the central point, while so many others are arguing who should be on the list , who should be off, what countries should be on, which should be off, what criteria should be used-- all fair subjects for healthy debate, but the point is, it is The President who gets to decide- not some liberal state's AG's, not the immigrant lobby, and not the shopped - for lib judges, that typify the 9th circuit, but The President.  I think we will see many more such assertions/reaffirmations of Presidential power. 

:lol:

Are these the Presidential powers you wanted Obama impeached for? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ivanbalt said:

:lol:

Are these the Presidential powers you wanted Obama impeached for? 

What ever happened to that.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ivanbalt said:

:lol:

Are these the Presidential powers you wanted Obama impeached for? 

No. They are white Presidential powers. Please try to keep up. :D

Edited by FatBoy
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Sun board libs still haven't learned anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soulflower said:

I’m sure that Iran has spies in the US. Nearly every country does.

They may even have terror cells but the terrorists they support don’t typically do attacks outside the Middle East...

Oh well then, I see your point.  A nation that will use terrorism to attack nations it does NOT typically describe as the Great Satan and treat as a mortal enemy can be trusted to not use every opportunity to use that tool against an opportunity to attack the nation it does describe as its enemy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Oh well then, I see your point.  A nation that will use terrorism to attack nations it does NOT typically describe as the Great Satan and treat as a mortal enemy can be trusted to not use every opportunity to use that tool against an opportunity to attack the nation it does describe as its enemy.

 

 

Not every Iranian citizen is a threat to the US just as not every Canadian citizen is a threat to the US. 

What’s wrong with judging humans as individuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0