The Immigration Ban

The Immigration Ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterJaguar01 -> The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:20:31 PM)
I know this has probably a beaten dead horse in many other threads but... I cannot see how a U.S. Citizen's (or even a state's (like my own) standing to file suit under Constitutional clauses which ONLY apply to U.S. Citizens) standing, even if harmed, could trump (no pun intended) the President's duty to protect the country. Even though the ban demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the threats we face. Even though the ban actually makes us less safe by denying opportunities to interview potential immigrants, AND gives away our strategy to our enemies so they will attempt to enter the U.S. with passports from countries not on the list. Even though the ban emboldens our enemies and increases their ranks and funding from individuals, and (in the case of Iran and Hezbollah) from foreign governments. Even though there is nothing of any significance that can be accomplished during the ban time frame to improve the very thorough vetting process that already exists (and has been extreme for individuals from the Obama list of "countries of concern") Even though the ban damages our relationships with most of our allies from the middle east. IMHO, it is the President's right to implement it. We will see what the Supreme Court says.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:23:36 PM)
Because: 1) the ban violates the Constitution, and 2) the administration can give no proof there's a dire emergency except in its own hysteria.

WickedsDesire -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:28:42 PM)
My counter argument to you would be he is lying mess of piggery and sophism cannot be justified-enabled in any format The report's author, Alex Nowrasteh, concluded the number of Americans killed in a terror attack by someone from one of the seven countries on Mr Trump's list, between 1975 and 2015, was zero. (He does point out that six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni were convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on US soil in that time). Only three deaths were attributed to refugees in the 40 years spanned by the report - and those were caused by three Cuban terrorists in the 1970s. For some perspective, here are some other causes of death in the US in 2015 alone: Causes of death in 2015 (US only) 979 people killed by "accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed" 57 by bees, hornets or wasps 21 by glass 22 by contact with hot water from a tap Source: CDC I like to lob in death by American killing American with their guns is 1,300,000 in the same time Security? Zero is bested by 1.3 million, 2000 bees etc - wasps are complete cunts like your president fanny Thats my take on it even though he shat on your constitution, not that thats worth much - it has long been eroded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmJmRwDGk60

BoscoX -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 I know this has probably a beaten dead horse in many other threads but... I cannot see how a U.S. Citizen's (or even a state's (like my own) standing to file suit under Constitutional clauses which ONLY apply to U.S. Citizens) standing, even if harmed, could trump (no pun intended) the President's duty to protect the country. Even though the ban demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the threats we face. Even though the ban actually makes us less safe by denying opportunities to interview potential immigrants, AND gives away our strategy to our enemies so they will attempt to enter the U.S. with passports from countries not on the list. Even though the ban emboldens our enemies and increases their ranks and funding from individuals, and (in the case of Iran and Hezbollah) from foreign governments. Even though there is nothing of any significance that can be accomplished during the ban time frame to improve the very thorough vetting process that already exists (and has been extreme for individuals from the Obama list of "countries of concern") Even though the ban damages our relationships with most of our allies from the middle east. IMHO, it is the President's right to implement it. We will see what the Supreme Court says. How many threads on this? Hysterical much

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Because: 1) the ban violates the Constitution, and 2) the administration can give no proof there's a dire emergency except in its own hysteria. MM, that's my WHOLE point... I think it is a bit gray whether or not it "violates the Constitution". Immigrants have no Constitutional rights. It has to be a U.S. entity or citizen with standing to file suit. The immigrant has NO standing. Now, it could be the immigrant's family (who could be U.S. citizens), or the immigrant's employer, or a U.S. state or city. But if these people (or entities) are allowed to block a President's EO on these grounds, then where does it end? i.e. Can ExxonMobil sue because they are harmed by Russian sanctions? Can Haliburton sue, because they are harmed by Iran sanctions? (Oh wait, they just ignored them) As far as the administration not giving any proof, yes that's a problem (because there IS no proof), but not a violation of the Constitution. Actions against foreign governments unequally impact U.S. citizens all the time (and yes, one could apply one of the many anti-discrimination Constitutional clauses to them). I just don't see a standing to sue.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:44:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 I know this has probably a beaten dead horse in many other threads but... I cannot see how a U.S. Citizen's (or even a state's (like my own) standing to file suit under Constitutional clauses which ONLY apply to U.S. Citizens) standing, even if harmed, could trump (no pun intended) the President's duty to protect the country. Even though the ban demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the threats we face. Even though the ban actually makes us less safe by denying opportunities to interview potential immigrants, AND gives away our strategy to our enemies so they will attempt to enter the U.S. with passports from countries not on the list. Even though the ban emboldens our enemies and increases their ranks and funding from individuals, and (in the case of Iran and Hezbollah) from foreign governments. Even though there is nothing of any significance that can be accomplished during the ban time frame to improve the very thorough vetting process that already exists (and has been extreme for individuals from the Obama list of "countries of concern") Even though the ban damages our relationships with most of our allies from the middle east. IMHO, it is the President's right to implement it. We will see what the Supreme Court says. How many threads on this? Hysterical much Sheesh... I am supporting the President's prerogative here. You should be happy :)

WickedsDesire -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:51:26 PM)
All new threads are welcome OP on this place - hush now boscox There was simply no logical/ logistical reason for the ban MasterJaguar01 I just told you death count from those 7 countries since 1975 was zero. and by American bee was 2000 plus (almost rivals 7/11 as trumpaloons would say.....did you know he has no buildings/hotels/whorehouses or business interests in those seven countries? Yet the other excluded 40, predominately, Muslim countries were excluded - Saudis being the most guilty of all! Incidentally can someone tell me how Americshire arms deals are worth to those sand dwellers and enablers of terrorists? All countries enable "terrorists" shrugs There was/is no grey. Enablers for sure.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:51:36 PM)
This ban: - included VISA holders and Green card holders, status given to them by the US already - established a religious criteria, particularly allowing Christian exceptions If the Constitution is to be set aside when someone feels it's inconvenient, then it's worthless paper. By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. [image]http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trumpbantoon11.jpg[/image]

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:55:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This ban: - included VISA holders and Green card holders, status given to them by the US already - established a religious criteria, particularly allowing Christian exceptions If the Constitution is to be set aside when someone feels it's inconvenient, then it's worthless paper. By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. [image][IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/nfmy5d.png[/IMG][/image] VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed)

BoscoX -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. More hysteria "White nationalists" everywhere... [:D]

WickedsDesire -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:57:46 PM)
The judges voted 3 to nil - their ruling was a pussy fest they had the opportune to call him an utter fuking lying mess of piggery and chose not to do so fair disappointed me that...lets see if I can find the BBC take on it Trump loses appeal court bid to reinstate travel ban http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38927175 Mr Trump responded with an angry tweet saying national security was at risk and there would be a legal challenge. guffaws

Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 12:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This ban: - included VISA holders and Green card holders, status given to them by the US already - established a religious criteria, particularly allowing Christian exceptions If the Constitution is to be set aside when someone feels it's inconvenient, then it's worthless paper. By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. [image]http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trumpbantoon11.jpg[/image] VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed) They are legal by definition -- they followed the law. The President can't just snap his fingers: that's why we have three branches of government, as the president is slowly learning.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:02:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. More hysteria "White nationalists" everywhere... [:D] Nope. YOU couldn't respond to the facts, so you had to invent the "everywhere." Hysteria. Without it, you have no clue what to say. It's your only mode of expression.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This ban: - included VISA holders and Green card holders, status given to them by the US already - established a religious criteria, particularly allowing Christian exceptions If the Constitution is to be set aside when someone feels it's inconvenient, then it's worthless paper. By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. [image]http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trumpbantoon11.jpg[/image] VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed) They are legal by definition -- they followed the law. The President can't just snap his fingers: that's why we have three branches of government, as the president is slowly learning. Normally, when it comes to matters of National Security, the President CAN just "snap his fingers"... We'll see what the Supreme Court says. I would think it would set a dangerous precedent if individuals or other U.S. entities can block an action against foreign individuals or governments based on harm caused from a violation of their own Constitutional rights. You can find harm, from a violation of one of the Constitutional anti-discrimination clauses in almost ANY action taken by ANY President. You have to remember, the harm experienced by the foreign individual or government is irrelevant. It has to be harm to a U.S. citizen or entity. Imagine radical Sunni U.S. citizens suing to stop the U.S. policy of fighting ISIS. - Religious discrimination against radical Sunni Islam. A Sunni Imam in Los Angeles sues, because of one his mosque members is killed.

mnottertail -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This ban: - included VISA holders and Green card holders, status given to them by the US already - established a religious criteria, particularly allowing Christian exceptions If the Constitution is to be set aside when someone feels it's inconvenient, then it's worthless paper. By the way, white nationalists were removed from travel restriction watch lists. So much for safer. [image][IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/nfmy5d.png[/IMG][/image] VISA folders and Green card holders have ZERO Constitutional rights, therefore the religious criteria is irrelevant (Unless a U.S. citizen (or entity)) is harmed) Gitmo decision (and those people never set foot in the US) and people who have been in the US though not currently here on those visas and green cards puts you at odds with SCOTUS. Just saying. I aint gonna look them up, but One was Rumsfeld v and I dont recall any of the other ones name

Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:16:06 PM)
But it ISN'T a matter of national security, except in the president's fear-mongering. The court noted the administration could provide no proof at all. None. Nadda. Zip. And, as you're both learning, the president CAN'T just snap his fingers. He's not a dictator.

WickedsDesire -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:21:04 PM)
The court noted the administration could provide no proof at all. None. Nadda. Zip. then they should have called him a complete lying cunt, which he is...if thats not worth an impeachment I do not know what is

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery But it ISN'T a matter of national security, except in the president's fear-mongering. The court noted the administration could provide no proof at all. None. Nadda. Zip. And, as you're both learning, the president CAN'T just snap his fingers. He's not a dictator. You know and I know it isn't a matter of national security. Also, in this case, the reason why the administration provided no proof is because none exists. Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights. My own state's AG lists harm to my state (with which I do not argue). I do however, question a U.S. individual or entity's standing to sue to seek a remedy from economic impact or ??? to block a president's act that he/she BELIEVES is protecting the country.

WickedsDesire -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 1:37:48 PM)
guffaws...oh the blind.....

Musicmystery -> RE: The Immigration Ban (2/10/2017 3:22:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery But it ISN'T a matter of national security, except in the president's fear-mongering. The court noted the administration could provide no proof at all. None. Nadda. Zip. And, as you're both learning, the president CAN'T just snap his fingers. He's not a dictator. You know and I know it isn't a matter of national security. Also, in this case, the reason why the administration provided no proof is because none exists. Nevertheless, the President says it is a matter of National Security, and it only DIRECTLY impacts people who have ZERO Constitutional rights. My own state's AG lists harm to my state (with which I do not argue). I do however, question a U.S. individual or entity's standing to sue to seek a remedy from economic impact or ??? to block a president's act that he/she BELIEVES is protecting the country. Well, this is why you've never been nominated to be a judge.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375