The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[JSSkinz]

11 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

jshuck...four judges...two gopers and two dems see it the same way so far...not saying that makes them right or that it will stand...just not all partisan...courts/legal system are working as intended, politics and all and both sides regularly scream about judge's rulings as tradition...per the intel, 2 things...#1 no evidence from so many sources available that any specific event is imminent or that this move would actually impact anyway (weak case there), and some congressmen (two i think) who have the top secret briefings, without giving details, have said "no there's not one", but there are many other sources that would know and we would sse some evidence in their statements (mc cain and graham for instance)  that this ban/judgment was a problem...but no one in gov outside of trump circle is thinking it is....even most of the congress  gopers backing it are not thinking it's really urgently needed, it's a trump appeasement and just in general, <competent> moving to improve national security) is always a winning theme and worth attending....then we add Cheetolito's Way tothe script  and hilarity ensues...

 

 

which leads me to #2....sadly, while all admins lie, i'm certainly at the point with this admin that i literally question anything he tells me (if i don't already know for sure)...were he, bannon, or flynn (even pompeo right now) to give out intel i wouldn't believe it...mattis/kelly, yes for now

 

Look I agree with #2, but throw out the fact we have an idiot in office for just a second.

 

So the question I ask is do I/you/we think its a good idea for the courts to ask for evidence of past national security issues to confirm that there is a threat? National security isn't a murder or robbery, there's a bunch of countries who have never attacked us but that doesn't mean it won't or can't happen in the future.  

 

I'm just looking at it for the precedent it could set.

 

 

[redskins59]

1 minute ago, jschuck12001 said:

Look I agree with #2, but throw out the fact we have an idiot in office for just a second.

 

So the question I ask is do I/you/we think its a good idea for the courts to ask for evidence of past national security issues to confirm that there is a threat? National security isn't a murder or robbery, there's a bunch of countries who have never attacked us but that doesn't mean it won't or can't happen in the future.  

 

I'm just looking at it for the precedent it could set.

 

 

 

The Government made the argument that the president's executive order is unreviewable.  To which, the court says the following:

Quote

Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001)

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

 

The pdf file above is their response, which is 20 some pages, if anybody wants to read it.

[Jumbo]

they won't be overturned on this. full review of the 9th would be brief stall at best

 

tell ya right now, tho i'm not a legal guy, this one is cooked.  even aside from any "muslim ban" issue, that EA is not written rationally (legally or literally), and that will be its demise. the courts will kill this very bad EA and write a judgment that leaves  admin do a rational, reasoned one supported by evidence and justifies impact/consequences v threat and more... they'll need a big boy pants version not based on ignorant glandular incompetence  <use mattis, kelly, and  pompeo--not don, steve, mikey, rudy and jeff>  .

[The Sisko]

1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

I'm tired of pretending it's a "brain cell" issue...it's not.  It's a racism issue.  They will fully understand, but it won't matter.

 

America, specifically rural America, became radicalized in 2001.  We have a redneck Taliban in this country now.

Agreed. However the two aren't mutually exclusive. Our "Taliban" are just as dumb, theocratic, and anti other as the original version.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, The Sisko said:

But when the attack comes and the perpetrators aren't from one of the countries covered by the ban it will totally show that the ban was total BS....

 

Nope.  It will prove that he didn't ban enough Muslims.  

 

[Springfield]

If we get attacked, I fear for my Muslim friends.  I believe that there would be nothing short of internment camps.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

 

How can you properly "check and balance" when you don't have essential intel.

 

I really don't understand the original reason for the hold. The courts say the ruling is based on the order favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims.  A Muslim ban would be a ban against all Muslims in all 54 Muslim countries, not just 7.

 

Politics aside this ruling smells, it may be the right thing to do at least partially but it sounds like it lacks a valid argument.

 

 

You can't discriminate against every Muslim, but you also can't discriminate against Muslims from one country.  

 

Even if it is one country or one family or even one Muslim, if it is discrimination against somebody because of their religion, it is illegal.

Edited February 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You can't discriminate against every Muslim, but you also can't discriminate against Muslims from one country.  

 

Even if it is one country or one family or even one Muslim, if it is discrimination against somebody because of their religion, it is illegal.

 

Is it discrimination to favor a persecuted minority? 

 

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Is it discrimination to favor a persecuted minority? 

 

 

No.  BUT:

 

1.  Banning everybody but a persecuted minority is still discrimination if you don't have a good reason to ban them.

 

2.  Trump singled out ONE persecuted minority to favor (Christians).  There are other persecuted minorities in the relevant countries and even other religious persecuted minorities.  Trump's own words and things like his own singling out of Christians (on the Christians Network) are coming back to haunt him.

Edited February 10, 2017 by PeterMP

[Jumbo]

if it's really about saving the persecuted, why do they need any other label than "persecuted"?

 

(i already have some answers, but here to learn)

 

[twa]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

No.  BUT:

 

1.  Banning everybody but a persecuted minority is still discrimination if you don't have a good reason to ban them.

 

2.  Trump singled out ONE persecuted minority to favor (Christians).  There are other persecuted minorities in the relevant countries and even other religious persecuted minorities.  Trump's own words and things like his own singling out of Christians (on the Christians Network) are coming back to haunt him.

 

Obviously everyone else is not banned as evidenced by those allowed in while the EO was not stayed.

Visas subject to further review is also not a ban.

 

7 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

if it's really about saving the persecuted, why do they need any other label than "persecuted"?

 

(i already have some answers, but here to learn)

 

 

Were they labeled in the EO?....I think not

The practice however has been in use under several administrations.

 

Conflating Trumps words with the EO wording leads to wrong conclusions.

[PeterMP]

Just now, twa said:

 

Obviously everyone else is not banned as evidenced by those allowed in while the EO was not stayed.

Visas subject to further review is also not a ban.

 

 

Were they labeled in the EO?....I think not

The practice however has been in use under several administrations.

 

Conflating Trumps words with the EO wording leads to wrong conclusions.

 

Who was let in before the EO was stayed (local courts were staying the EO that night it was issued and there was some issues as whether Green Card holders were allowed in).

 

You can't separate the 2.  Intent matters in cases like this, and it is Trump's EO and his administration that will be enforcing it.

[The Sisko]

23 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

if it's really about saving the persecuted, why do they need any other label than "persecuted"?

Good point since as we all know, Xtians are the only persecuted group, minority or not. 

[Jumbo]

here's a fun way to look at all this...trump...mr. only i can keep you safe, who knows more than the generals, and runs the best orgs, and his hundreds of generals and admirals and other best people...focused on what was to be the most important centerpieces of his admin and his biggest campaign themes (with the wall, paid for my mexico, and locking hillary up).....deploy what was to be an urgently needed drastic remake  for our nation's safety...and toally ****ed the pooch from stem to stern in every way shape and form.....a disaster on multiple fronts

 

...in war/imminent nat'l threats you better have effective strategy, tactics, and execution or you lose...the grand wizard here and all his bestest henchmen blew their biggest deal big league right out of the box....

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Jumbo]

17 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

Good point since as we all know, Xtians are the only persecuted group, minority or not. 

  

 

"Ok. I hear that all of you are in fear for your and your families' lives and are persecuted and want to leave. Ok, who here is a <whatever>?" 

 

 

 

(redskins fans first---we even persecute ourselves and each other)

[visionary]

 

[Jumbo]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Obviously everyone else is not banned as evidenced by those allowed in while the EO was not stayed.

Visas subject to further review is also not a ban.

 

 

Were they labeled in the EO?....I think not

The practice however has been in use under several administrations.

 

Conflating Trumps words with the EO wording leads to wrong conclusions.

  

 

i didn't (don't) conflate.

 

they were not labeled in the eo.

 

yes, on the practice in other admins, too (if i had a kill button i'd push it for everyone who does that and i'd be here all alone)

 

so this reply was useless to me and a waste of my valuable dicking around on ES during commercials  time 

 

try not to do that again 

 

 

[TheGoodBits]

I have nothing to add to this discussion other than I am quite pleased by the ruling, and President ****face von Clownstick can go suck it.

 

 

we somehow made it through the entire election cycle without me remembering his nickname: http://gawker.com/donald-trump-lashes-out-at-jon-stewart-for-revealing-hi-489657795

Edited February 10, 2017 by skinsfan_1215

[TradeTheBeal!]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Just to be clear, you are negatively judging a large group of American RADICALS because they negatively judge a large group of Americans? 

 

Fixed. And yes.

[twa]

The 9th Circuit’s dangerous and unprecedented use of campaign statements to block presidential policy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.56568af73d49

 

There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive. The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show “that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Fixed. And yes.

Ahh.....so you consider rural Americans to be Radicals?  Gotcha.  Wish you had said that the first time.

 

(Of course you could just admit your overly broad generalization was wrong and no better than what these "radicals" do with Muslims and other minorities)

[twa]

27 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

  

 

i didn't (don't) conflate.

 

 

the court did  

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

 

 

America, specifically rural America, became radicalized in 2001.  We have a redneck Taliban in this country now.

 

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Ahh.....so you consider rural Americans to be Radicals?  Gotcha.  Wish you had said that the first time.

 

(Of course you could just admit your overly broad generalization was wrong and no better than what these "radicals" do with Muslims and other minorities)

 

Honestly, I could hardly have been more clear about the matter.  And I will stand by it...as a rural American.  

[The Sisko]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Ahh.....so you consider rural Americans to be Radicals?  Gotcha.  Wish you had said that the first time.

 

(Of course you could just admit your overly broad generalization was wrong and no better than what these "radicals" do with Muslims and other minorities)

Funny that the people who love to scapegoat Mexicans, Moozelums, etc. for just about everything with little or no facts to substantiate it are so upset that others are allegedly stereotyping them. I'm soooo broken up for them. Really, I am.

 

Here's the difference. If one looks at the number of attacks or even foiled plots by refugees, it's minuscule. Most have been done by 2nd generation types, naturalized citizens or American citizen converts to Islam. So to stop that, they'll need Dump's registry followed by internment camps. Are we really ready for that? Or is he just trying to boil the proverbial frog? 

 

Moreover, if one does what the all lives matter crowd does whenever an unarmed black person is killed by the cops, the question of where's all the outrage and severe methods to stop the far more numerous mass shootings by white males would need to be raised.