I didn't "marginalize" anyone, that was already done by Byron York. He is afterall the person who had to expand his definition from acts of terrorism to encompass any terrorist related activites. If you have an issue with this take it up with Byron York. I am merely analyzing what he has already stated
You justify the halt to the temporary ban by flippantly marginalizing people with valid concerns as being non-thinking irrationals.
Again, take it up with Byron York
I feel this is disingenuous. Byron York didn't expand any definition; he reported on the analysis from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. Did you read the article? He wasn't the one who called people who agreed with the temporary ban non-thinking and irrational; you did.
The judge asked how many terrorist attacks & how many arrests involved people from those 7 countries since 9/11. Byron York then reported on the findings from the the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. He didn't change the definition of anything, and if the judge deemed it necessary to include the date starting from 9/11, why didn't you?
So it is either this or nothing? Did I ever say that? You assume so much in your binary thinking. Why didn't Trump just issue an executive order to more stringently vet the incoming rather than ban them outright? I would imagine it is because that wouldn't have been enough for all of those who have succumbed to the fear mongering that passes as news these days.
First of all, the ban is more of a halt to give the US government more time to create a better vetting system than what the UN has now. Secondly, the implication in your argument that terrorists are smart and will just circumvent the temporary ban is clear.
I can only make assumption based on the information you provided, which to this point shows no analysis of fact, but rather acceptance of the same without context
The numbers and facts came from the DOJ, who gave it to the the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. A subsequent breakdown of those numbers was also given with context that proved Judge Robart was wrong. I don't know what you're reading.
Mainly because 9/11 was a once and done, one time attack for which all sorts of new restrictions and protections have already been put in place. The incident isn't relevant to the ban we are discussing, because NOT ONE of the perpetrators was from a country included on the ban list
No, you don't get to decide that and move the goal posts. The judge specifically started from 9/11, so I think it's only intellectually honest to start there as well. Aren't most terrorist attacks one and done? That's a silly argument. The part about "all sorts of new restrictions and protections" is also irrelevant, as is the "because not one of the perpetrators was from a country included in the ban."
Bottom line for me is that the powers of the President are limited by the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution. A judge and the appeals court are one such check on the powers of the President. Rather than succumbing to the partisan ramblings of Byron York and his under analyzed facts, you should be glad that the system is still functioning despite the abuse of EOs by Presidents, both past and present
I haven't heard much in the way of constitutional legality from Judge Robart, just a ruling based on alternative facts that he put out. Article II of the Constitution is pretty clear:
“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.”