Banning immigrants from "certain" countries

Discussion in 'Political Discourse' started by tenpoundsleft, Jan 26, 2017.

  1. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    You haven't made personal attacks towards me so I will gladly return that favor.
    outkicked1 and Michael Scally MD like this.
  2. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    So you're talking about how affirmative action has been banned In California for almost 20yrs now? So you admit that a law you view as unconstitutional or prejudiced should have been overturned and are now complaining about another prejudicial or unconstitutional law be kept??? Pick your side and stay with it, don't flip flop on issues to suit your argument.

    Obama always maintained it was a penalty and not a tax. The Supreme Court upheld it on the grounds that it was a tax. That's a distinction you seem to conveniently forget or ignore.
  3. XKawN

    XKawN Member

    Lol, I'm pointing out your flip flop. You liberals are all for discrimination depending on who's being discriminated against. I could go on all day with cases of liberal discrimination. And once affirmative action was voted out liberals amended the proposition to allow more discrimination by allowing discrimination in public colleges. Oh, and keep in mind, we're talking about the US government discriminating against US citizens who have constitutional rights.

    And Obama was very clear and consistent that Obamacare was "not" a tax. The double standard is amazing.

    "Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitutionto prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in America.

    The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of theClaremont Institute). It was later endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson and supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, a Wilson ally. A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor Gail Heriot, who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The initiative was opposed byaffirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5, 1996, with 54 percent of the vote, and has withstood legal scrutiny ever since.

    In November 2006, a similar amendment modeled on California's Proposition 209 was passed in Michigan, titled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The constitutionality of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was challenged in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is constitutional, and that states had the right to ban the practice of racial and gender preferences/affirmative action if they chose to do so through the electoral process.

    On December 3, 2012, California State Senator Edward Hernandez introducedCalifornia Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) in the State Senate.[1] This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014.[2] However, following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration"
  4. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    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.

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

    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.
  5. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    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.
  6. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    The law says "whenever the president deems necessary"

    The judge going against that isn't a check, it's disobeying the law and enacting his own. There isn't any other way to interpret "whenever the president deems necessary"
  7. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    Did I ever tell you or anyone else I was for affirmative action??? I don't recall doing so. That must be an ASSumption on your part :p

    And as your Wikipedia quote clearly states, the SCA-5 bill was withdrawn. Thank you for proving my point almost as well as I did hahahahaha. It just means less work for me when you're helping so thank you.

    Obama was adamant that it was not a tax I already said that. The Supreme Court upheld the mandate bc the government argued it in several ways. They dismissed the idea of a penalty under the commerce clause bc you can't force someone to engage in economic activity of they don't want to but they upheld it as a tax which was another one of the government's arguments even though Obama said it wasn't a tax. They were able to do this bc the court uses a system called functional approach where they're not bound solely to the language as the law is written but also by the substance of it. The difference between trump and Obama in this case happens to be that the functional approach determined constitutionality of the health care mandate as a tax as it was implemented while it determined trump's travel ban was not. Trump's own words didn't help the matter lol. The other difference between the two? Trump doesn't have the balls to stick to his own promise and now wants us to believe this isn't a travel ban on Muslims lol
    Eman and Michael Scally MD like this.
  8. MassTurk

    MassTurk Member

    I am your countrymen and they are my parents. How do you justify my parents being treated differently than yours ?

    I don't understand what you are trying to say? It doesn't correlate

    I don't follow you logic here ??
    Roco Bama likes this.
  9. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    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.
  10. XKawN

    XKawN Member

    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 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.
    outkicked1 likes this.
  11. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    Again going back to my analogy you didn't understand, I will try to explain it.

    (People aren't snakes--example purpose)

    If you're standing on a pile of harmless snakes (your parents/friends/family)

    But one in the pile is a deadly aggressive snake (terrorist)

    Will it make you any less dead that all the other snakes were nice and only the poisonous viper bit you?

    Again, I'm not literally calling anyone a snake
  12. kawilt

    kawilt Member

    Quit poking the beehive:eek:
  13. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    Haha, that's what this whole thread is a big bee hive.

    I think you're right though. It isn't going to help. People that agree with TEMPORARY restriction aren't going to budge. People that disagree aren't going to budge.

    I see it as logical, straightforward, common sense. I guess the other side sees their viewpoint as logical.

    To me it seems like common liberal logic. Slippery slope fallacy, long winded twisting arguments that fall apart and would only work in a fairy tale world of rainbows and gum drops.

    I'm not responding anymore. When more people are murdered, we'll see the next line of liberal excuses.
  14. kawilt

    kawilt Member

    Ain't no way out of this mess. Only going to get worse....No matter WHO'S driving.:(
    outkicked1 likes this.
  15. XKawN

    XKawN Member

    The problem is... Trump is supposed to be driving. Obama got his chance to drive now step aside and let trump drive.
  16. Eman

    Eman Member

    The only thing Trump is driving is a golf cart...
    System7 and Docd187123 like this.
  17. kawilt

    kawilt Member

    They all, all a chance....I'm not talking about just Trump,Obama, Clinton,Bush, Bush, Reagan,Nixon, Kissinger, Kennedy, Johnson and on and on ad nauseum....Youv'e been bent over so long you don't know your still being f..... collectively speaking of course, I don't mean you personally.
  18. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    I'd love to hear you explain how Judge Watson enacted his own law by shutting down Trump's executive order....

    Plenary power isn't as absolute as you think it is. Consider the case of Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001. The Supreme Court ruled that presidential plenary powers didn't authorize the president to indefinitely authorize detainment of immigrants. If detainment was to last longer than 6months, the government had to show deportation within the foreseeable future or special circumstances. And since you're so interested in Supreme Court Justice's political affiliations, Only one justice at that time was a democrat....

    Consider the case of Congress' plenary and absolute power to congress to declare war but many presidents have overstepped that right and went to war. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942 and how many wars have we been in since that lasted more than 90days?

    Consider the case of Oceanic Steam Navigation v. Stranahan in 1909 in which the Supreme Court ruled that "it is the congress, not the president, that makes immigration law. ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over… the admission of aliens". From my checking, at least 5 of those justices were republicans.

    Now this is where you're arguing that congress delegated at least some of those rights when they passed the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act which stated:

    Section 212(f), states: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    You should look up the cases of Chae Chan Ping v. United States for an example of what plenary powers can do. The guy lived here 12yrs or so I believe as a resident. He decides to visit his homeland and family in China, and gets the necessary paperwork to guarantee reentry into the US. Unfortunately, after he leaves China to come back but before he reaches the state's, a new law took effect and blocked his reentry. Why did this happen when before immigration between China and the USA was so extensive? Well the government had decided that since the transcontinental railroad had finished being built and an economic recession had hit that it should limit immigration. The ban on China went up a notch when in 1892 the court determined that Chinese immigrants could only stay in the US if they had a certificate of residency, which among other things, required (and I quote) the testimony of "a credible white witness". In 1893 Fong Yue Ting v United States, 3 Chinese workers were denied their right to live here bc while they were widely acknowledged as residents, they had no white person to certify that. Look up the case of Nishimura Ekiu, Mariel Cubans, Haitian political refugees, Chinese asylum seekers, and Arabs/Muslims/middle Easterners most recently. I bring these topics up to point out the absurdity/racism/prejudice of some of the immigration laws we have or have had but also that it was the judiciary that extended the plenary powers to begin with. This is the same judiciary you now have a problem with bc they are disobeying the law. Ironic how it all ties in together.

    Anyway back to the topic at hand. You bring up section 212(f) to which I counter with the Immigration Act of 1965 which amended the 1952 act and says

    8 U.S. Code § 1152 -
    (A)Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

    Now this is where you argued that trump's travel ban is not discriminatory in nature. I have offered up the numerous instances of trump himself saying it was a Muslim ban, the evidence of Guliani admitting trump asked him how to make a Muslim ban legal (which coincidentally admits he knows it's illegal or else why ask how to make it legal?), the ruling of judge Watson, etc. even if you ignore trump's intentions, which you readily seem to want to do, you cannot get around the fact that the ban does In fact affect the racial and ethnic composition of the country which is exactly what the 1965 act attempted to ban.

    Your next argument was that trump could ignore this as president bc he deems those 7 countries as "detrimental to the United States". But the problem arises that if trump can ban ENTIRE NATIONALITIES that he deems detrimental, then this means the 1965 act has no power to prevent discrimination. This is also where I bring up the DOJ memo that lends credence to my argument that banning people from these countries won't significantly improve the safety and security of the country. The next question is, what's to stop him from naming any country as a detriment to the United States? He doesn't like Mexicans. Are they going to be the 8th country? His meeting with Merkel didn't go over too well, will they be the 9th country? Hell, he might determine that all Latinos and people from South American are either drug cartels or muderers and rapists and he'll ban the entire continent of South America from coming. You don't think that's a logical conclusion well just look at how vindictive, childish, and egotistical he is lol.

    Finally, if that wasn't enough to convince you that the president can't suspend the discrimination act of 1965 then I highlight to you the "Last in time rule" that holds that when statutory conflict arises, the courts will enforce the later-enacted federal statute. Since 1965 is later than 1952.....

    I don't know about you, but this is roughly the point where Xkawn and maybe one or two other members were floundering and proffered up the idea that trump is only acting in the list that Obama and his congress made in 2015. The issue with this comparison and why the argument is ripped to shreds is that this 2015 law was placed on temporary visitor visas of people from those countries. It said those people had to be interviewed and get a visa before coming to the US. While that is discriminatory in its own right, the 1965 act prohibited discrimination against permanent immigrant visas and not temporary visitor visas. Since trump's is dealing with permanent immigrant visas it is covered by the anti discrimination act.

    Lastly, there is some court precedence on this. U.S. Department of State v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers the DC Court of appeals found that "The appellees’ proffered statutory interpretation, leaving it fully possessed of all its constitutional power to make nationality-based distinctions, would render 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a) a virtual nullity.” Also in their findings:

    "We agree with appellants' interpretation of the statute. Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language. While we need not decide in the case before us whether the State Department could never justify an exception under the provision, such a justification, if possible at all, must be most compelling--perhaps a national emergency. We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications simply on a preferred "rational basis." Cf. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442, 453 (S.D.Fla.1980) (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a), INS has no authority to discriminate on the basis of national origin, except perhaps by promulgating regulations in a time of national emergency)."

    If you made it this far I fuckimg applaud you. My hands hurt from typing all this shit.
    Eman and outkicked1 like this.
  19. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    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 ;)
  20. outkicked1

    outkicked1 Member

    Haha, yeah I made it. I'm worn out, but I have SO much to say regarding you're latest post.

    I will post more tomorrow, especially regarding "Last in time rule". That's a hint of the direction I'm taking, be ready!

    Until then I'll leave a Trump response to most of what you said.