THE ERA OF TRUMP

[de officiis]

I think it would have been better had he left out the part in § 5 about religious minorities (read: Christians) getting a break. Including this opened a due process avenue of attack under 8 U.S.C. §1152 (a) (1) (A) (“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”). People shooting their mouths off about the XO being a veiled effort to exclude Muslims didn't help, either. It would have been better had he just made it a blanket ban as to the 7 countries for 90 days, and had people at the operational level make individual exceptions based on whatever vetting procedures they've developed. I think ultimately we'll seen the whole thing refined to avoid the objections that have been thrown up. The real challenge is, how do you not discriminate based on religion when you're fighting to keep out a radicalized religious group?

[Speaker to Animals]

I think it would have been better had he left out the part in § 5 about religious minorities (read: Christians) getting a break. Including this opened a due process avenue of attack under 8 U.S.C. §1152 (a) (1) (A) (“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”). People shooting their mouths off about the XO being a veiled effort to exclude Muslims didn't help, either. It would have been better had he just made it a blanket ban as to the 7 countries for 90 days, and had people at the operational level make individual exceptions based on whatever vetting procedures they've developed. I think ultimately we'll seen the whole thing refined to avoid the objections that have been thrown up. The real challenge is, how do you not discriminate based on religion when you're fighting to keep out a radicalized religious group?

So, it should have been like America in the 1930s saying nobody from Nazi Germany should ever come here, including all the Jews the Nazis were trying to exterminate?

You still don't see how odious all this sounds to at least half of the American people do you?

In that analogy, the democrats are fighting tooth and nail to get as many Germans, including Nazis, to move to America, but they don't like the idea of bringing over any of the people the Nazis are trying to genocide.

[jbird4049]

The way that I see is a bit like StA (DSL) mentioned above but more like that Trump does want an incident with a Muslim immigrant, where he can say, "lookie here, this is what I was trying to stop", but the issue for the courts is actually about the fact that this EO has blocked people holding valid visas and green cards entry or reentry into the US. This is where the legal battle is forming over and this something that no president has done before, so there seems to be no legal precedent for this kind of EO to take hold of.

And those people do not possess any right to reenter the US. So what?

Nobody has the right to immigrate to any particular country.

The idea that these people have some unalienable right to return to America simply because they had a green card is ridiculous. The federal government can revoke that green card as it sees fit. What the democrats essentially argue is that every human being has a natural right to move to America.

Let's at least be upfront about what you people believe.

That is just it. They do have that right. We are not talking about anyone, or everyone just moving into the United States, like some illegals. They were given a permanent status as a resident after a multi-year vetting process. Except for voting, and serving on juries, holding Federal office, they have all the rights, and responsibilities of American citizens. They pay taxes, work, even serve in military. Some of those blocked are serving in the military at this very moment.

They can be blocked, deported, and/or stripped of a green card of course, but a reason is usually given, and it is done individually. No reason has been given here except for possibly "the terrorism" as if it were Ebola, except for the country most responsible for its present creation and spread, Saudi Arabia is on not on the list of blocked countries. Saudis were the ones most responsible for 9/11. So we blocked half a million people because of fear, and as a cheap, disgusting, political stunt, but not some of the people who are most likely to kill us. Old women, children, soldiers, business executives. My, how fucking brave, and serious we are.

This is just like the Japanese Interment of the Second World War, which was ruled legal, because maybe some of them might help the Japanese Empire invade the United States. None of them every did, including the ones who were never interred, or those thousands who fought in the American military.

So please enough with the pseudo seriousness, and the strawmaning.

[jbird4049]

No, he did do it right. The executive branch carries out immigration law and his executive order is meant to manage how the executive branch conducts business. That's exactly what an EO is for.

Nor is this the first time a president has barred immigration by a group a people. Obama did it. Carter did it. A ton of presidents did it in the past.

Trump did nothing wrong. Get that through your ideological brain force field.

So, if the President did it, it is legal? Reminds me of President Nixon statement ‘If the President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal.’ (I believe he meant in an emergency, a necessity, not a habit.), and John Yoo's Unitary Executive.

We are treading into strong man territory. We do not need an Il Duce.

To be honest, If Congress was doing its job, and not giving evermore power to the President, Trump might have gone through Congress first.

[Okeefenokee]

The way that I see is a bit like StA (DSL) mentioned above but more like that Trump does want an incident with a Muslim immigrant, where he can say, "lookie here, this is what I was trying to stop", but the issue for the courts is actually about the fact that this EO has blocked people holding valid visas and green cards entry or reentry into the US. This is where the legal battle is forming over and this something that no president has done before, so there seems to be no legal precedent for this kind of EO to take hold of.

And those people do not possess any right to reenter the US. So what?

Nobody has the right to immigrate to any particular country.

The idea that these people have some unalienable right to return to America simply because they had a green card is ridiculous. The federal government can revoke that green card as it sees fit. What the democrats essentially argue is that every human being has a natural right to move to America.

Let's at least be upfront about what you people believe.

That is just it. They do have that right. We are not talking about anyone, or everyone just moving into the United States, like some illegals. They were given a permanent status as a resident after a multi-year vetting process. Except for voting, and serving on juries, holding Federal office, they have all the rights, and responsibilities of American citizens. They pay taxes, work, even serve in military. Some of those blocked are serving in the military at this very moment.

They can be blocked, deported, and/or stripped of a green card of course, but a reason is usually given, and it is done individually. No reason has been given here except for possibly "the terrorism" as if it were Ebola, except for the country most responsible for its present creation and spread, Saudi Arabia is on not on the list of blocked countries. Saudis were the ones most responsible for 9/11. So we blocked half a million people because of fear, and as a cheap, disgusting, political stunt, but not some of the people who are most likely to kill us. Old women, children, soldiers, business executives. My, how fucking brave, and serious we are.

This is just like the Japanese Interment of the Second World War, which was ruled legal, because maybe some of them might help the Japanese Empire invade the United States. None of them every did, including the ones who were never interred, or those thousands who fought in the American military.

So please enough with the pseudo seriousness, and the strawmaning.

No one needs a reason to not extend American rights to people who aren't Americans. Somalis don't enjoy our press freedoms, and no matter how much you cry about it, no one has to extend them to them. You're backwards on how this works.

[de officiis]

I think it would have been better had he left out the part in § 5 about religious minorities (read: Christians) getting a break. Including this opened a due process avenue of attack under 8 U.S.C. §1152 (a) (1) (A) (“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”). People shooting their mouths off about the XO being a veiled effort to exclude Muslims didn't help, either. It would have been better had he just made it a blanket ban as to the 7 countries for 90 days, and had people at the operational level make individual exceptions based on whatever vetting procedures they've developed. I think ultimately we'll seen the whole thing refined to avoid the objections that have been thrown up. The real challenge is, how do you not discriminate based on religion when you're fighting to keep out a radicalized religious group?

So, it should have been like America in the 1930s saying nobody from Nazi Germany should ever come here, including all the Jews the Nazis were trying to exterminate?

You still don't see how odious all this sounds to at least half of the American people do you?

In that analogy, the democrats are fighting tooth and nail to get as many Germans, including Nazis, to move to America, but they don't like the idea of bringing over any of the people the Nazis are trying to genocide.

I can't honestly say I know how most Americans view this XO. What little I have read indicates that about half of Americans approve, and half don't, split pretty much on party lines. Most Republicans favor the order because they think it will make the country safer. They think that Islam is a more violent religion than others. Most Democrats disfavor the order and don't think it will make us safer. They don't think Islam is more violent than other forms of religion. I think most Americans want to believe that theirs is a country that welcomes immigrants and refugees who are willing to go through a legal process to get here and who are willing to live here peaceably. That presumably encompasses a great many Muslims, as well as Christian refugees from some of these countries. Most Americans evidently believe that one's religious beliefs should not be a criteria for determining who can be admitted, and the statute reflects that. As many people as you imagine on the Right proclaiming the Democrats' opposition to the order as "odious" can be matched by imagining an equal number of people on the Left proclaiming that any form of religious discrimination is "odious."

[jbird4049]

No one needs a reason to not extend American rights to people who aren't Americans. Somalis don't enjoy our press freedoms, and no matter how much you cry about it, no one has to extend them to them. You're backwards on how this works.

How is backwards? I am not suggesting that we should extend rights to people who live in other countries. I am stating that people who already have been granted the permanent right to live here via green cards, who have almost all the rights of citizenship, because they followed the law, and all the required steps to get the card, not be summarily, unjustly, and with little reason other than unreasoning fear, and rank politics.

Further, I would like you to tell me what does the wholesale denial, based only on their only place of birth, makes us safe? If that is true, then the Hell is not Saudi Arabia not on the list? More people from Saudi Arabia have killed more Americans in America than anyone from anywhere else.

If these people are so dangerous, Trump should follow the law and ask Congress to amend it. If he has any good evidence, or even just good lies, I'm sure Congress would love to amend the immigration laws. We have laws for a reason, do we not?

[Okeefenokee]

No one needs a reason to not extend American rights to people who aren't Americans. Somalis don't enjoy our press freedoms, and no matter how much you cry about it, no one has to extend them to them. You're backwards on how this works.

How is backwards? I am not suggesting that we should extend rights to people who live in other countries. I am stating that people who already have been granted the permanent right to live here via green cards, who have almost all the rights of citizenship, because they followed the law, and all the required steps to get the card, not be summarily, unjustly, and with little reason other than unreasoning fear, and rank politics.

Further, I would like you to tell me what does the wholesale denial, based only on their only place of birth, makes us safe? If that is true, then the Hell is not Saudi Arabia not on the list? More people from Saudi Arabia have killed more Americans in America than anyone from anywhere else.

If these people are so dangerous, Trump should follow the law and ask Congress to amend it. If he has any good evidence, or even just good lies, I'm sure Congress would love to amend the immigration laws. We have laws for a reason, do we not?

It's not permanent. Green cards get revoked all the time.

[jbird4049]

It's not permanent. Green cards get revoked all the time.

They are permanent for almost all. Unless there a good reason of course. Here though Trump thought quasi revoking half a million people, and blocking many more from coming here via decree because what? And if it was necessary, Congress can easily be asked to change the law. It is what Congress is for after all, and not the President.

[de officiis]

Another Obama appointee babbling about a coup. Fuck all.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/ ... anti-trum/