Banning immigrants from "certain" countries

[Docd187123]

I don't believe his lies over the evidence. Just look at what's happening in the middle east, I believe my eyes and ears, common sense.

Under the EO he attempted to enact there wasn't preferential treatment. You're talking about his words of what he said he "would" do not what was in the actual order that restricted everyone from that area.

Do you even know what was in the executive order? Apparently not. Please use your eyes and common sense to tell me that this isn't exactly what you said he WAS NOT doing:

• Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin. This provision would allow the White House to prioritize Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. In fiscal year 2016, the US accepted 37,521 Christian and 38,901 Muslim refugees. Since 2001, the US has accepted nearly 400,000 Christian refugees and 279,000 Muslim refugees.

 

[Docd187123]

Exactly checks and balances, the judge is legislating from the bench.

It doesn't violate the constitution, what the liberal judges did is the violation.

I provided examples of mostly conservative SCOTUS which have upheld this form of checks and balances so you're going to have to do better than just "what the liberal judge did is the violation" lol.

Equal protection in the 14th amendment is for US citizens, not aliens, that's made clear in the first sentence.

And it also states " "No State shall deny to any PERSON...the equal protection of the laws."

As far back as 130 years ago and as recently as 2001 the courts have upheld equal protections and due process for aliens. Even James Madison said

"that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

I believe it will increase security. We shall see. Do you have a retort ready for when we are attacked, to say it has nothing to do with the halting of the TEMPORARY restrictions. Start working on it now.

Do you have a retort for when attacks happen regardless of a temporary restriction or when the temporary restriction doesn't prevent an attack other than "I believe"? I'd start working on that now too...

 

[Docd187123]

Really? Withdrew? Lol. Forced out more like it. The government discriminates against people all the time. People that are supposed to have civil rights afforded to them by the constitution. People's that are not citizens and do not reside here aren't supposed to have constitutional rights.

And the travel ban has attempted to strip the constitutional rights of people that have lived here for years, the same people you're arguing should be afforded those rights....

Again thank you for making my argument for me. At this rate I won't even have to respond anymore as you'll cover everything I'll want to say.

And as far as the difference between the Obamacare and Obama' words and the the travel ban and trumps words are huge, but the difference should be on trumps side. A sitting president making promises on a bill that he's pushing, his words should have so much more meaning and should be held accountable more so than a private citizen making promises on the campaign trail while running for office.

Is this your way of saying it's ok if trump lies or your way of saying trump shouldn't be held accountable for what he says bc he was only a presidential candidate and not a sitting president lol?

Anyway like I said, 1 of the two ways the Obama administration argued the mandate was legal under the penalty of commerce was not legal but the other way under taxation powers given to congress was. Neither of trump's arguments, that this was a Muslim ban during the campaign trail to its a thinly veiled Muslim ban under the guise of national security, proved to be legal so far. But let me guess, you only blame Obama for failing to live up to campaign promises and trump gets a free pass... Why am I not surprised

 

[Docd187123]

Not every immigrant that's coming here is your parent or family. The masses chanting death to America are people that are not my countrymen, they want death to my countrymen. What better way to cause death to my fellow citizens than come here and cause death.

You are saying our bomb raids create Isis members. You said that. Isis members want us dead. If they come here they can kill us.
Not your parents, members of an extremist faction that want us to die.

So you want us to believe a TEMPORARY ban, as you've highlighted before, will prevent Isis members from coming here? What about Isis members from countries not on that list? Let's ban every country just in case. What about after the TEMPORARY ban ends? Let's continue it as permanent! You do realize that you don't need an illegal ban to effectively limit entry of terrorists? I mean judging by your tone it's a wonder we weren't subjected to more terrorist acts before trump came to save us all

 

[outkicked1]

It won't make me any less dead if the poisonous viper bit me but it wouldn't make the harmless snakes any more culpable for the actions of the viper

But if the snakes are checked before they surround you the viper wouldn't be there to kill you at all. I want you to live.

 

[Docd187123]

But if the snakes are checked before they surround you the viper wouldn't be there to kill you at all.

You don't think they are being checked already??? All permanent resident immigrants are checked and refugees are checked even more so. For example, their finger prints are ran by not just the FBI but also by DHS and DOD. They undergo a Security Advisory Opinion. They undergo screening from the National Center in Counterterrorism. If there is ANY type of doubt about them posing a security risk then they're denied entry. There's more steps involved and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Syrian and Iraqi refugees already undergo more extensive screening than the rest. So I am eagerly anticipating how you believe stopping a temporary ban stops immigrants and refugees from being checked.

While I'm waiting, I'll leave this amazing quote from one of trump's advisors regarding his 'extreme vetting'

"It would require a near overhaul of the application form and very likely capture many more thousands of applicants in the 'administrative processing' net, although arguably not adding any greater security checks than already exist."

I want you to live.

Id like for you to live as well

 

[outkicked1]

First there were 2 democrat justices in 2001. Stephen Bryer (1994) and Ginsburg (1993). Not one like you said.

Second, you said congress hasn't declared war since1942. This is misleading because congress has voted for military engagement 23 times since 1942. This includes Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Also, when you quoted the fourteenth amendment you replaced critical words with dots. You left out no state shall deny to any person WITHIN IT'S JURISDICTION. If they aren't allowed to travel here they aren't in state jurisdiction.

Next you quote James Madison. He didn't say all aliens are allowed all the time. I'm fact he said "They owe, on the one hand a temporary obedience" in return we owe affording them constitutional rights. The guy attempting to board the plane with the bomb in his shoe isn't holding up his end of that bargain.

You touched on Obama's travel restriction, in fact every president going back for generations have placed travel restrictions.

The case law you listed chae Chan ping had nothing to do with terrorism. You said 1965 discrimination supersedes 1952 immigration law because Last in time rule since 1965 is after 1965

Section 1187 (a)(12) states

Under this provision an alien is eligible for waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria anytime after March 1st, 2011
(b) in any country whose government is designated by state department as repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism; or (c) in any country that has been designated by department of homeland security as a country of concern. Since 2011 is after 1965, guess what, last in time rule. This expressly authorizes basis of origin when concerns of terrorism, which like I said ping case has nothing to do with terrorism. N/

STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT- "the very delicate, plenary and EXCLUSIVE power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations. A power that doesn't require as a basis for its existence an act of congress."

Again you talk about trump banning Mexicans out of spite, the 2011 statute doesn't afford that, it's regarding terrorism.

I'll see your 1909 case and raise you a founding father.

Thomas Jefferson- "The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether"

 

[outkicked1]

Now let's go simple, straightforward, linear, and common sense.

America has for a long time had enemies who want us dead. The restrictions are temporary so our sitting president can assess our protocols AND the procedures of the countries the immigrants are coming from.

You said have my argument ready for when we're attacked regardless of the immigration order.

We and others will be attacked, but at least we will have taken the steps we can to stop it from happening due to bonehead airplane travel procedures.

The foreign extremists don't have ICBMs, they have to get here to hurt us, they don't have jets to get here, they hijack ours.

I see them chanting death to America, I see cars driving into groups of people. I see the explosions and hear the screams. I don't want more of that here.

 

[outkicked1]

I have more, but I think that's enough for today.

 

[Eman]

they have to get here to hurt us, they don't have jets to get here, they hijack ours.

Not really... We're much more likely to be attacked within our own borders. They aren't hijacking anything...

Since Trump is a proponent of loosening restrictions on guns, they won't even need a truck to run into a group of people.

 

[outkicked1]

Not really... We're much more likely to be attacked within our own borders. They aren't hijacking anything...

Since Trump is a proponent of loosening restrictions on guns, they won't even need a truck to run into a group of people.

That's what I'm saying, within our borders.

 

[outkicked1]

There were guns eveywhere on 9/11. Most damage by crashing airplanes using box cutters.

My point was attacks from within by flying here first.

 

[outkicked1]

Isis fighter leaves Mosul because people have legs and cars, boards a plane in Somalia using some fakebake passport, they don't catch it because we didn't place a TEMPORARY restriction to make sure their procedures and protocols are up to par. Then the terrorist is here.

You say, there are procedures already in place. I say any president puts a hold on travel and checks himself, rather than saying, meh I'm sure the last president did it right. Saving the downtrodden is important, but shouldn't sacrifice our own security. We aren't the saviors of the world.We have plenty of our own problems here already,very don't need to import more.

 

[outkicked1]

Not really... We're much more likely to be attacked within our own borders. They aren't hijacking anything...

Since Trump is a proponent of loosening restrictions on guns, they won't even need a truck to run into a group of people.

Also you said they aren't hijacking anything.

They already did....multiple airplanes. Just cause they aren't at this moment.

 

[Eman]

Also you said they aren't hijacking anything.

They already did....multiple airplanes. Just cause they aren't at this moment.

Yeah, "did" being the key word... You're aware of how much shit has changed since that happened right? Things are different now, they are going to try and sneak in just like you're so concerned about but our vetting process is "extreme" as it is. As was already posted, the government has admitted that even with substantial changes its not going to affect the bottom line and the process isn't going to become a lot safer.

My point in bringing up the gun bit is that you're about 30x more likely to be killed by a gun, used by an AMERICAN than you are by an immigrant of any other nation, probably combined... But our focus is set on fighting to block entry from these countries because of how unsafe we all are. Get real.

 

[outkicked1]

The executive branch is part of the government, it hasn't admitted that. That's what the TEMPORARY order is for.

The vetting process is already extreme is subjective.

30x more likely, that's why I have a gun and lock my doors. I take the steps I can to prevent that.
I could get hit by a car crossing the street, it's possible even if I look both ways, so I might as well not look both ways.

You say the process is extreme enough, the president of America says it may not be, the laws and constitution clearly state that's his responsibility not yours or Hawiian libbys.

 

[outkicked1]

You also say won't be a lot safer, that's also subjective, depends on who you ask.

Safer even a little is better

 

[outkicked1]

You admit they will try to sneak in.

Checking preventative measures is good.

Things have changed, enemy tactics change too. Preventative measures will need change to keep up with the extremists changing tactics based on our measures.

 

[outkicked1]

The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease so stop worrying about guns. Does that make sense? No it doesn't.

Just like saying people are more likely to be killed by guns so don't temporarily restrict travel from war torn terrorist hotspots to check current procedures doesn't make sense.

 

[Docd187123]

First there were 2 democrat justices in 2001. Stephen Bryer (1994) and Ginsburg (1993). Not one like you said.

You are correct. I made a mistake. Woe those two liberal justices who poisoned the minds of the rest.

Second, you said congress hasn't declared war since1942. This is misleading because congress has voted for military engagement 23 times since 1942. This includes Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Correct but one hasn't been issued for Syria/Isis. Obama says the 2001 AUMF and 2002 Iraq War AUMF are what he needs. I disagree.

Also, when you quoted the fourteenth amendment you replaced critical words with dots. You left out no state shall deny to any person WITHIN IT'S JURISDICTION. If they aren't allowed to travel here they aren't in state jurisdiction.

Are you aware of the many people who WERE allowed to travel here who got denied bc of the temporary ban? A doctor not from my old area went to treat cataracts as a philanthropic measure and was not able to get back in the country. He'd been a permanent resident for God knows how many years.

Next you quote James Madison. He didn't say all aliens are allowed all the time. I'm fact he said "They owe, on the one hand a temporary obedience" in return we owe affording them constitutional rights. The guy attempting to board the plane with the bomb in his shoe isn't holding up his end of that bargain.

And for that to hold any weight, you have to show the guy boarding the plane with the shoe bomb has the shoe bomb to begin with.

You touched on Obama's travel restriction, in fact every president going back for generations have placed travel restrictions.

I'm aware of that but none have done so in such a blanket or prejudicial fashion. Please list any you think may have.

The case law you listed chae Chan ping had nothing to do with terrorism. You said 1965 discrimination supersedes 1952 immigration law because Last in time rule since 1965 is after 1965

if you looks back at my post you'll see that I never attempted to use Chae Chan Ping as a case of terrorism.

Section 1187 (a)(12) states

Under this provision an alien is eligible for waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria anytime after March 1st, 2011
(b) in any country whose government is designated by state department as repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism; or (c) in any country that has been designated by department of homeland security as a country of concern. Since 2011 is after 1965, guess what, last in time rule. This expressly authorizes basis of origin when concerns of terrorism, which like I said ping case has nothing to do with terrorism.

This is going to be fun. You do realize this is from the Visa Waiver Program right? That means that certain visitors from countries can travel to the US without obtaining a visa. Certain banned countries on the list, Syria and Iraq like you mention, cannot be granted visa waivers and must get a visa before traveling here. It in no way refuses to grant them a visa or prohibits their travel here. So since waiving the requirement for a travel visa but still allows for a visa to be had has nothing to do with the banning of visas: 1965 is still later than 1952....

STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT- "the very delicate, plenary and EXCLUSIVE power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations. A power that doesn't require as a basis for its existence an act of congress."

Let's forget for a moment that Curtiss-Wright was based on an exportation embargo but does include the part you mentioned, lets focus on the part you left out:

"but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution."

Again you talk about trump banning Mexicans out of spite, the 2011 statute doesn't afford that, it's regarding terrorism.

As I stated before, since trump bans prohibits visa applications rather than simply wave their requirements, trump can ban anyone he wants to out of spite if left unchecked by the balances set forth in our constitution.

I'll see your 1909 case and raise you a founding father.

Thomas Jefferson- "The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether"

Thank you for providing Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the executive authority to NOMINATE AMBASSADORS AND OTHER PUBLIC MINISTERS AND CONSULS. I,guessing you meant fold instead of raise; unless you want me to call your bluff and ask you how you seem to think an ambassador appointment should affect immigration policy???