9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban - Page 3 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 129Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #31 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:12 PM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,394
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Between silly immigration restrictions and obscene airline ticket prices in the USA we're pi$$ing away billions of dollars every year from tourism...

I have lots of foreign born friends whose relatives visit yearly. No more. Not worth the hassle of waiting months for a visa interview.

john117 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:19 PM
Member
 
jb02157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,188
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by becareful2 View Post
The judge made his ruling based on false info and passed it off as fact. He was no national security expert so why base a ruling on knowledge that he didn't have? Did he bother to ask the DOJ for those stats? No, and if he was paying attention to the news, he would have known about the Somali who attacked those people at OSU. His ruling was not only based on false information but it was based on emotion as well, given that he has a soft spot in his heart for refugees.

Trump ran on many campaign promises, and he's been making good on several of them. Yes, he was wrong for saying he knew more than the generals but any person knows that statement was more bravado than factual. Now, as president, he has access to intel that the judge does not. He knows things that he cannot say, and given that his powers as POTUS include the ability to ban anyone from anywhere who poses a threat to this country, for however long, are spelled out in the Constitution, what legal grounds did this judge have to halt the ban while the Trump admin work to implement a better vetting process? Why no lawsuits, protests, and court reversals when Obama and Carter did it?

Yes, this country is made of immigrants, but that's not the issue that the anti-Trump people insist for being the motive behind Trump's EO. It is an undisputed fact that there are ISIS terrorists among the refugee population that have come into western countries, and it should be common sense to delay the processing of those entries from those countries that do not have a proper vetting system in place until we can set up something better than letting the U.N. handle it.

If there is even one terrorist among the one hundred Syrian refugees who were allowed in during this halt to the temporary ban, will you blame Trump for it or will you blame the judges for their emotion-based rulings?
I agree with you. You can't tell me that at least one of those "refugees" that are now allowed in the country will one day end up being part of the next terrorist act unleashed on this country. I don't know how the hell a judge's decision, however wrong it is, can overturn the decision of the President. Those judges now are personally response for the next terrorist attack. We better hope this matter goes to the Supreme Court and they do the right thing by upholding the travel ban.

"I've paid double for every transgression I've ever made and that motel and that boat are little to ask for"
jb02157 is offline  
post #33 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: MI
Posts: 3,605
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
The president's power does not extend to violating the constitution. Base on his own public statements earlier , this was a ban based on religion, even if religion wasn't specifically mentioned. The court decided that there was sufficient evidence that the ban was discriminatory to bock it until there is a full court case.

The courts may decide to uphold the ban. All that was decided was that the temporary stay should remain in place because there was good reason to believe the ban might be overturned.

If the President had not talked about banning Muslims, he might not be in this situation.

If the president's staff had put together clear evidence of an immediate threat, he might not be in this situation.

The president's negative comments about a judge didn't help either. Try insulting the judge next time you have a case in court and see how it works out.

Basically the president and his staff screwed up up big time. A well thought out plan could have gotten all the effects he wanted.
Foreigners, last I checked, don't have any rights in the US when they are not here. That this is a religious ban is steaming pile. Many other countries are primarily Muslim and don't have the ban AND, the countries on the ban have been vetted as being at risk of infiltrating terrorism. If this ban is unconstitutional = free borders.

Based on existing law, the POTUS Doesn't NEED to prove an immediate threat. Congress gave that power to the president 6 presidents ago.

I am sure that DT publicly coming after the judge didn't help, but when they are soooo wrong, the only answer is impeach or publicly chastise, impeachment takes too long (as it almost never happens).
naiveonedave is offline  
 
post #34 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,376
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

An interesting question: Does equal protection extend to visitors in the US?

Again, while the law doesn't say "muslim", the president did - on national media. Courts are allowed to use that information.

This ban can be unconstitutional but still have close boarders. The president could legally ban ALL immigration. The president can order extra security checks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by naiveonedave View Post
Foreigners, last I checked, don't have any rights in the US when they are not here. That this is a religious ban is steaming pile. Many other countries are primarily Muslim and don't have the ban AND, the countries on the ban have been vetted as being at risk of infiltrating terrorism. If this ban is unconstitutional = free borders.

Based on existing law, the POTUS Doesn't NEED to prove an immediate threat. Congress gave that power to the president 6 presidents ago.

I am sure that DT publicly coming after the judge didn't help, but when they are soooo wrong, the only answer is impeach or publicly chastise, impeachment takes too long (as it almost never happens).
uhtred is online now  
post #35 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: MI
Posts: 3,605
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
An interesting question: Does equal protection extend to visitors in the US?

Again, while the law doesn't say "muslim", the president did - on national media. Courts are allowed to use that information.

This ban can be unconstitutional but still have close boarders. The president could legally ban ALL immigration. The president can order extra security checks.
Visitors do have some amount of equal protection (which is partially why we use Guantanomo to handle terrorists, so they don't have the full slew of rights).

What ~90% of the populace would be happy with is legal vetted immigration, that is reasonable easy to get through and minimizes our risk of letting terrorists in. What we currently have is rampant illegal immigration (which probably helps let in terrorists and other undersirables - rapists, murders, etc.), a legal system that is too painful and expensive and currently no legal way to prevent high risk persons (i.e., future wannabe terrorists) from getting in.
naiveonedave is offline  
post #36 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:54 PM
Member
 
BlueWoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 586
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by becareful2 View Post
]source

Excerpt:
The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted not just arrested, but tried and convicted of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.

The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives at least 60 from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.

In addition, since the Senate list was compiled, there have been others involved in terrorism in the United States from the seven countries. One highly-publicized example was the case of Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who last November wounded 11 people with a machete during an attack on the campus of Ohio State University. In fairness to Judge Robart, Artan was shot and killed by police not arrested so perhaps the judge didn't count him.




I wonder if they were all men? I am thinking they were at least 90% men. Maybe we should just ban men from coming into the country.

Actually, while we are at it, perhaps we should look seriously are restricting the rights of men who are already here. I mean as an American woman I am way more likely to die at the hand of a man who was born in the US than a refugee.

Wait? You think that's stupid? You are right, it is. Just like this ban is stupid and dangerous.

But beyond the stupidity, the judge isn't an expert on homeland security, he's an expert on the constitution and the law, the judge is saying that this executive order is unconstitutional. And honestly I don't think they are going to be over turned. The next step is the supreme court and even with the Trump nominee getting in before this issue makes it to the supreme court, it's highly like the courts are also going to agree that this executive order is unconstitutional. This is what checks and balances look like. Welcome to America.
BlueWoman is offline  
post #37 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:01 PM
Member
 
BlueWoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 586
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by naiveonedave View Post
Visitors do have some amount of equal protection (which is partially why we use Guantanomo to handle terrorists, so they don't have the full slew of rights).

What ~90% of the populace would be happy with is legal vetted immigration, that is reasonable easy to get through and minimizes our risk of letting terrorists in. What we currently have is rampant illegal immigration (which probably helps let in terrorists and other undersirables - rapists, murders, etc.), a legal system that is too painful and expensive and currently no legal way to prevent high risk persons (i.e., future wannabe terrorists) from getting in.
We actually have an extremely thorough vetting process. It is very difficult to come into the United States legally or illegally, particularly if you are from a middle eastern country.

What we do have a problem with is people over staying their legally acquired visas. And this current ban will actually make this issue worse. People are afraid to leave the country because they might not make back in. So they stay, and that's when we lose track of them.
BlueWoman is offline  
post #38 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:32 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,005
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
You have to excuse me, I didn't realize you were looking to reargue the case. I should have stated that York got his information from the DOJ. In any case the arguments made failed to convince the judge or the Court of Appeals. You can whine that I was disingenuous, but the reality is that the original facts (580 total convictions, 380 from foreign nationals, 60 from the banned countries) came from the same DOJ facts provided by York. You may not like the reality, but Trump, his administration and Byron York do NOT make any compelling argument.
OTOH I could call you out for attributing a Presidential power to the Constitution, when Article II of the Constitution makes no mention of the matter.
I agree that the Trump administration did a poor job of preparing the EO with relevant facts. My point was this Judge Robart did not address the constitutional legality of the case but mostly based his ruling on his false facts. But I made a mistake with the Article II reference. I was thinking of something else. It's Title 8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
becareful2 is offline  
post #39 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:37 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,005
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueWoman View Post
I wonder if they were all men? I am thinking they were at least 90% men. Maybe we should just ban men from coming into the country.

Actually, while we are at it, perhaps we should look seriously are restricting the rights of men who are already here. I mean as an American woman I am way more likely to die at the hand of a man who was born in the US than a refugee.

Wait? You think that's stupid? You are right, it is. Just like this ban is stupid and dangerous.

But beyond the stupidity, the judge isn't an expert on homeland security, he's an expert on the constitution and the law, the judge is saying that this executive order is unconstitutional. And honestly I don't think they are going to be over turned. The next step is the supreme court and even with the Trump nominee getting in before this issue makes it to the supreme court, it's highly like the courts are also going to agree that this executive order is unconstitutional. This is what checks and balances look like. Welcome to America.
You're right; the judge is an expert on the constitution and the law, but instead of focusing on the legality of the EO, he based his ruling on his expertise of homeland security matters, and erroneous facts that he cited.

The rest of your argument is emotion based, and has little to do with the constitutionality of the EO or facts.
becareful2 is offline  
post #40 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:40 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,655
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb02157 View Post
You can't tell me that at least one of those "refugees" that are now allowed in the country will one day end up being part of the next terrorist act unleashed on this country.
I was going to not tell you this, but it seems that you don't think it will happen. Kudos to you my friend, kudos for not giving into fear mongering politics!

Herschel is online now  
post #41 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:41 PM
Member
 
Keke24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 525
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

I keep hearing/seeing people saying that the vetting process is inadequate without really addressing what specific aspects of the process needs to change. Does anyone really know what the vetting process is? Care to share?
Keke24 is offline  
post #42 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:46 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,005
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueWoman View Post
We actually have an extremely thorough vetting process. It is very difficult to come into the United States legally or illegally, particularly if you are from a middle eastern country.

What we do have a problem with is people over staying their legally acquired visas. And this current ban will actually make this issue worse. People are afraid to leave the country because they might not make back in. So they stay, and that's when we lose track of them.
Nonsense. It's quite easy to walk across the border and stay here indefinitely, but then again, we're not referring to poor people from the ME. The people we are concerned about are well financed Islamic radicals who want to harm Americans. The vetting process currently in place is a joke for people from the seven countries. How is our government going to determine a refugee's motive if not even their native country has the info on their background? Syria currently is at war, so who is going to provide us with the profiles of all their immigrants?

If any immigrant who are here on a VISA wants to stay, it is very easy and we would have a very hard time tracking them.
becareful2 is offline  
post #43 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:47 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,005
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keke24 View Post
I keep hearing/seeing people saying that the vetting process is inadequate without really addressing what specific aspects of the process needs to change. Does anyone really know what the vetting process is? Care to share?
The FBI doesn't have a database of these refugees' backgrounds, so there's no way to determine who they really are. They basically get to create a clean slate when they come here.
becareful2 is offline  
post #44 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:54 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,005
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herschel View Post
I was going to not tell you this, but it seems that you don't think it will happen. Kudos to you my friend, kudos for not giving into fear mongering politics!
I bet the pc Germans used to share your belief, until Chancellor Merkel saturated their country with around a million Muslims. Now with so many sexual assaults, the so-called irrational fear have become reality for them. There was a story about some 300 British teen girls being sexually assaulted by ME men, but that was swept under the rug.
becareful2 is offline  
post #45 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 02:56 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,771
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
The president's power does not extend to violating the constitution. Base on his own public statements earlier , this was a ban based on religion, even if religion wasn't specifically mentioned. The court decided that there was sufficient evidence that the ban was discriminatory to bock it until there is a full court case.

The courts may decide to uphold the ban. All that was decided was that the temporary stay should remain in place because there was good reason to believe the ban might be overturned.

If the President had not talked about banning Muslims, he might not be in this situation.

If the president's staff had put together clear evidence of an immediate threat, he might not be in this situation.

The president's negative comments about a judge didn't help either. Try insulting the judge next time you have a case in court and see how it works out.

Basically the president and his staff screwed up up big time. A well thought out plan could have gotten all the effects he wanted.
Except that the words of the order itself do not selectively ban any particular religion.

The President is not under any obligation of law to explain his reasoning for prohibiting entry of any person or class of persons. The federal law specifically says so. He could say he is banning all blond haired fat men who reside in Timbuktu from entering the country and it would be a lawful and Constitutional restriction.

The court is under oath to uphold the law and the Constitution. Trump didn't make his comment about the judge until after the judge had originally vacated the order. This is clearly a case of political action by the court, in complete opposition to the legal aspects of the case.
Thor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome