Trump's New Travel Ban Blocked

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Mar 15, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Second time isn't the charm, either.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-15-18-56-46

    This is just breaking, so expect the other news outlets to pick it up shortly.

    BL.
     
  2. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #2
    More bad news for Donnie. Like so many other weeks, he's not having a good week this week either. :D
     
  3. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    At some point you have to decide if the president has the power to restrict countries from getting visas, if he doesn't then no future presidents should have this power either.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    it would be fine if a democrat did it :D congrats to the courts for stepping in
     
  5. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #5
  6. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #6
    I read Kahala and instantly knew he was Hawaiian. Natives' descendants tend to keep one archaic/traditional part of their name.

    It's not about restricting a visa or visas. It's how the law is applied and what it will be doing. This is why our government has checks and balances. If someone doesn't like it, they're free to immigrate elsewhere.
     
  7. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #7
    Trump just said on stage he "likes the first one better", not the watered down version and that they should go back to that. Please proceed Mr. president. That should go over well in court. :D

    If you listen to him, more and more it seems like he is merely an observer/figurehead and others (Bannon?) are the ones really running the show. You like the first one better? Fine. You're the President...stick with it if you want and defend it in court. It's in your hands Mr. president. Go for it. I dare you.
     
  8. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    Just add North Korea to the ban so that it can't be said that it's a Muslim ban.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 15, 2017 ---
    Nah, he knew that it was going to the SCOTUS. There are 3,000+ judges across the US that can stop this. It's obvious that one of them will stop it. The real question is what will the SCOTUS do?
     
  9. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #9
    I'm still chuckling over Bannon and Breitbart News. Hate minorities and Jews, the liberal elite, et al. yet they chose Brentwood as their main headquarters. For those not in the know, Brentwood is very wealthy, very liberal, we have a lot of wealthy minorities in California, particularily 2+ Chinese, Korean, Japanese Americans who didn't rely on anchor babies and we're home to the US's 4th largest Jewish population. Despite that, you can't find a decent lox bagel, but I digress. They've also got an office just outside Tel Aviv.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 15, 2017 ---
    Wouldn't work. It'd still hold prejudice.
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    What prejudice? Are you saying that the US doesn't have a right to stop visas on a temporary basis? What are we, an anarchy?
     
  11. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #11
    They do. The ban carried prejudice against a group of people, in this case, Muslims. Trump stated that Christians would be allowed access. He was going after a specific religion of people from select countries. The order was irrational due to it not blocking the major sources of terrorism around the globe, such as Saudi Arabia.

    Both bans are terribly thought out and are amateur hour. Even GW's administration couldn't bungle something this bad.
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    Again this story. Trump's statements carry no value. The ban would prevent Christians to get in.
     
  13. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #13
    Except it didn't. It prioritized review of Christians. If Trump's statements carry no value then his EO carries no value and he as POTUS is of no value. You can't have it both ways. Meaning, you can't say he meant something firmly and then backtrack on other comments by stating "That's not what he really meant." The ban gave priority to RELIGIOUS MINORITIES. The ban was also ineffectual against dual passport holders. Someone born in Iraq, Somalia, etc. who held a foreign passport, would be allowed free access into the US. Being a citizen of two countries doesn't demonstrate you're any safer than a single citizenship individual.
     
  14. hiddenmarkov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Japan
    #14
    Why we have 3 branches of power (well 4, I count the IRS as a 4th power...and they even override many powers of the other ones...its the one organization where innocent until proven guilty does not apply...they freeze your assets and you prove your innocence later).

    Its just with trump...he is being more "creative" with the executive orders. Its like those moments where you rationalize you aren't a bad parent. its just you go I never thought my child would do that that freaky thing I in no way thought a person ever would do. You would think the blanket statement of don't do anything stupid would be a catch all to cover for when you covered the majors in details.

    in this case the founding fathers may have said lets leave this here, give the POTUS some powers....and it will all work out...we hope.

    Now on a side note...beside this I am wondering just how he will build his wall to keep the US safe from the south as well. See his executive order freezing government hiring's still in play too. that one stuck. We have a key position that has been vacant for while now. We not only want but need the person in this job real bad. many are starting to really feel this order's effects.

    So the question of the day....how will people be hired to build and then man this wall (see a wall with no guards on it...kind of useless), if you can't cant hire people to build this wall.
     
  15. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #15
    Love it or leave it a refuge for fools. Too bad there isn't a country for people who posit such silly things.

    The OP's point still stands. What is the president's power here? I hope that it's limited now, and for future presidents as well. We need to reign in the power expanded by the previous 2-4 administrations.
     
  16. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #16
    Are you implying people who dislike refugees or rather those who pick and choose should go somewhere so they're not bothered by refugees or their innate xenophobia?

    I wouldn't bet on it, not yet at least. Typically, to hold precedence, a decision must be made at a high enough court. Which in this case would be the Supreme Court, and Gorusch has indicated he does not agree with Trump's sweeping ban.
     
  17. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #17
    We had this discussion during the previous ban. Motivation came into play, and the judges unlike you do believe it's relevant.

    When its stated by those working on it to make a ban to intentionally sneak past legally, it smacks of being disingenuous. It undercuts any stated motivations or intentions claimed about the ban. If this a serious legitimate concern of the administration, why not do like the previous administrations? Consult your various departments from state to justice who help craft such things to pass muster and not cause the clusterf--- that happened during the first ban. Seriously work on a security program that doesn't even appear to come close to unconstitutionality.

    This isn't a liberal or activist judge thing, it's a constitutional thing. Get your whole administration working on it if you're serious, otherwise it just looks like pandering to a base.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 15, 2017 ---
    For people who are strong fans of the constitution, some are quick to throw out key parts they don't like, such as checks & balances.
     
  18. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #18
    1: no that's not what I said. Let me out it simply: if you say "love it or leave it" or any variation of that, you're a moron.

    2: what is the bet to be made? Does the president have or not have that power?
     
  19. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #19
    Still not making sense.

    In this case, our checks and balances system addressed the overreach POTUS made with his travel ban. What Trump has done in office has never been done by past Presidents to this extent. Which is why it isn't easy to say whether he holds power to decide what to do with Muslim immigrants from specific countries on a ban list, meanwhile ignoring countries that directly and indirectly funded attacks on US soil, and allowing exclusion to religious minorities and those who possess another passport other than their birth country.

    If the administration appeals and it's brought forth to the Supreme Court and they lose, this POTUS and all future POTUS will have very limited power for future immigration bans or adjustments to the immigration status quo.
     
  20. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #20
    What doesn't make sense about it?
     
  21. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #21
    What are you saying exactly? Post something concise and avoid using a borderline allegory.
     
  22. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #22
    You made a love it or leave it argument. That's an idiotic argument.
     
  23. HEK, Mar 15, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2017

    HEK Suspended

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #23
    It's his own bloviated mouth that caused it to be ruled against. Had he not ranted on about banning muslims and not mentioned christians in 1st ban this one probably would have passed muster.

    Plus if we didn't already have in place for years, extensive vetting from one to two years to grant visas. The Donald's alarmist retoric would make a little sense. He is such a narcisistic nitwit. Just quietly increase the vetting process. Stop with the propoganda efforts, they making you look the fool.

    Doesn't it bother anyone else that there have been NO persons from these countries doing any terrorist actions in the US. That countries like Saudi Arabia have been the source nation for most of the 9/11 terroists and those after. Yet that country is not on the ban.

    Why would you exclude the very countries from where terrorists have actually come from. It simply doesn't make sense. Unless there is an adgenda not openly disclosed. I don't want to believe we are in Saudi's pockets. But come on. Only planes leaving US after 9/11 were Saudi planes. Country that financed Bush business ventures. Now the country where we know terrorists have come from are not on ban list. But have Trump hotel.

    Doesn't stuff like this trouble conservative Trump supporters? This isn't made up stuff. Doesn't it bother Trump supporters that he is neck deep in swamp water he said he would drain. I just don't get how Donald can lie over and over, and yet supporters overlook and make excuses.
     
  24. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #24
    No, it isn't. This is a country built by immigrants. This is a country that is a melting pot. If Trump's far-right supporters want a total white country, they're free to go elsewhere. The days of a total white nation do not exist anymore and no form of controlled immigration will turn the tide.

    Now, if your college aged mind wants another method, it's that this country should not be against immigration based solely on religion of a select few countries, while ignoring countries directly involved for undermining our country. You have idiots who confuse Indians for Arabs, people who can't tell the difference between an Iraqi, southern Greek, Iranian and a Sikh, people who think Sikhs are Muslim, people who shoot Indians, etc. There's a portion of Trump supporters who crave a total white America. My point was that if they want it so bad, they can go elsewhere. It isn't going to happen.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 15, 2017 ---
    Honestly, even if it were an outright ban it would have been challenged. The administration could have come up with a better plan. They'd have been better by diverting money to multi-review interviews and keeping eye on people for a couple of years. Essentially a social service looking after possible high risk immigrants.

    For a successful businessman, he hasn't been succeeding much in his presidency. He's not as smart as he thinks he is. He makes enemies every day. I read he attacked a rapper this morning. I think it was Eminem. Calling him a dismal failure. I thought that was hilarious. I don't listen to rap, but I know Eminem is no failure.
     
  25. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #25
    Blah blah blah I pay taxes so if you don't like it move somewhere else
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page