Banning immigrants from "certain" countries

[Docd187123]

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

Common sense isn't so common when trump is in the picture lol.

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.

So why have we not banned every enemy who wants us dead on a travel ban?

Since the judiciary has set a TRO why waste time fighting the TRO? If as you state it's only to allow time to assess protocols and procedures for our safety, why use this PRECIOUS temporary time to fight a TRO rather than work on those protocols. The initial travel ban was for 90 days and issued in February was it not? Why waste a month and a half of the PRECIOUS AND TEMPORARY time rewriting it rather than pushing for new protocols? Bc he wants to make good on his Muslim travel ban promise and test the limits of how long he can get away with it is a logical assumption.

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.

So you admit we will be attacked regardless yet you waste time arguing over the temporary ban rather than push for the actual vetting procedures that the ban is supposed to give time to establish lol. That's funny to me. It's funny also how the Trump aide is quoted as saying that trump's vetting procedures would arguably not increase any safety. It's also funny how 1000+ state department officials signed the memo they disagree this plan would increase safety as did heads of intelligence agencies.

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.

And the temporary ban, the only thing you're arguing about is supposed to stop them from coming here? We banned the Chinese in the late 1800s yet they still came in. We banned communists during the Cold War. They still got in. We ban illegal drugs from entering the country yet billions of dollars worth still come in. Remember your comment about common sense? Yea...

 

[Docd187123]

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.

Let's take the flip side to your argument. Choking on food kills more Americans than terrorists so let's temporarily ban all food until we can asses protocols to see which foods are impossible to choke on. Bees kill more a,eek and than terrorists. Let's ban those bees temporarily to find the good ones from the bad ones....

 

[kawilt]

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"

He probably meant a "formal declaration of war" by congress as your constitution states. Your presidents have alway's had a way of getting around that pesky piece of paper.

 

[outkicked1]

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



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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."



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.



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???

I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong about the justices. I'm glad to educate, so you won't be wrong, since you were wrong. I'm glad you say I'm correct about congress voting for military engagement. Just like those examples, and you editing words out of the fourteenth, to make it fit your point the most of your post is slightly skewed and incorrect in just the right places to make it fit.

I guess you could say most of your responses are a justice short of a full bench.

I will post further corrections, since we have you admitting I'm correct, and you were wrong twice, we're about a fifth of the way where we need to be.

The problem is, you are intelligent, and pointing out the flaws requires thought, and A LOT of typing.

 

[Docd187123]

I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong about the justices. I'm glad to educate, so you won't be wrong, since you were wrong. I'm glad you say I'm correct about congress voting for military engagement. Just like those examples, and you editing words out of the fourteenth, to make it fit your point the most of your post is slightly skewed and incorrect in just the right places to make it fit.

I guess you could say most of your responses are a justice short of a full bench.

I will post further corrections, since we have you admitting I'm correct, and you were wrong twice, we're about a fifth of the way where we need to be.

The problem is, you are intelligent, and pointing out the flaws requires thought, and A LOT of typing.

I will always defend my position to the best of my ability until I'm shown concrete evidence to the contrary. I have no problems admitting mistakes, should I be proven wrong, BUT there must be proof.
Also, just for clarification, I did not edit any words out of the 14th amendment. I copied and pasted it directly from the web page I was on. The editing wasn't done by me.

Since we are on the topic of editing posts, are you going to admit you edited out the constitutionality part about executive power from States v. Curtiss-Wright quote? Well you or wherever you quoted it from?

Or how about the fact that you quoted Jefferson's opinion on executive power of ambassadorial appointments as a defense In Regards to immigration?

I'll await your corrections and admittance of error before pointing out youre a conservative away from a liberal-majority bench

 

[outkicked1]

I have SO much to type on this phone. I'm just going to do it piece by piece at my leisure so it isn't so daunting. Remember you said you will admit when you are wrong.

Immigration and Nationality act of 1965- banned discrimination of immigrants based on nationality.

Obama era 2011visa waiver program.

Excludes visa waiver for travelers from certain areas e.g. Syria.

What is it called when travelers from one area can obtain a visa waiver, but travelers from another area cannot gain a waiver based on where they're from.

It's called discrimination based on nationality. They can't get a waiver because they are coming from Syria etc.

It doesn't matter the law is about visa waivers, it's allowing something for some people that it disallows for other people just because of where they are traveling from.

Last in time rule. 1965 immigrant anti discrimination based on nationality is invalidated.

2011 is still after 1965

 

[XKawN]

I have SO much to type on this phone. I'm just going to do it piece by piece at my leisure so it isn't so daunting. Remember you said you will admit when you are wrong.

Immigration and Nationality act of 1965- banned discrimination of immigrants based on nationality.

Obama era 2011visa waiver program.

Excludes visa waiver for travelers from certain areas e.g. Syria.

What is it called when travelers from one area can obtain a visa waiver, but travelers from another area cannot gain a waiver based on where they're from.

It's called discrimination based on nationality. They can't get a waiver because they are coming from Syria etc.

It doesn't matter the law is about visa waivers, it's allowing something for some people that it disallows for other people just because of where they are traveling from.

Last in time rule. 1965 immigrant anti discrimination based on nationality is invalidated.

2011 is still after 1965

But... but, the bees. They kill people too. Lol.

 

[outkicked1]

Also people do take preventative measures for bees. There are big sprays and traps. People try to keep bees out of certain areas. Can't stop them all but there are preventative measures. You don't sit on the bee hive and say, oh well can't stop them anyway.

Same with choking. Choking hazard=recall and "banning" until safer product.

 

[outkicked1]

Let's take the flip side to your argument. Choking on food kills more Americans than terrorists so let's temporarily ban all food until we can asses protocols to see which foods are impossible to choke on. Bees kill more a,eek and than terrorists. Let's ban those bees temporarily to find the good ones from the bad ones....

View attachment 65228

Go show this chart to the families of 9/11 victims. I'm sure the widow wailing at her husband's grave will appreciate how much more dangerous the bees are.

Show the families of the Boston bomb attack. Big surprise the perpetrators applied for asylum to trick their way into our country. But our protocols couldn't possibly need checking.

Show that chat to the 3 dead 4 injured in the 2002 attack at the LA international airport. Tell them it's ok, statistically they should be alive, and who cares because we're fine. Again Muslim extremist that claimed asylum, that said he was fleeing persecution.

Maybe the chart would help calm the passengers of the 2009 flight where the perpetrator claiming to be a refugee attempted to detonate a bomb he had in his underwear. Luckily it just burnt him.

It goes on and on. I'm a refugee help me... just kidding I'm going to blow you up now, thanks for the plane ride, bye suckers.

 

[outkicked1]

Or if those are too old of events.
And you want to forget------ '''"Never Forget"----

How about the Iraqis charged on Monday. The ones that kidnapped and tortured American's in a bunker in Iraq.

Then made up a story that they were fleeing persecution, and came here on a plane. Took up residence in Virginia, and were finally caught after lying on naturalization papers and their fingerprints were found in the bunker.

Sure would like to be on a flight with them. They sound like great neighbors. As long as you stay away from their basement.