I think we need to stop using the word ban because it is not really a ban, it is a temporary travel delay. If the press can use all sorts of words to screech and cry then I can also. The temporary travel delay is for 4 months. It is not permanent nor is it saying you cannot come ever, it is just saying not now. I think the temporary travel delay is acceptable as long as it does not become permanent. We as a nation need to make sure that our vetting/screening process is thorough before we can open the gates again.
Ya know what? Every one on this thread is shooting from the hip. None of us have the text of the EO to read and try to understand, we're guessing based on the mainstream and alternate stream media. All we know is that it was isssued, the court found reason to stay the action, and the stay is being appealed. All the rest is completely out of sight, but for SURE not out of speculation, both foreign and domestic. All this to say that legal arguments in this thread carry about as much water as a sand sieve. All the back and forth is simply a waste of neural activity. Opinions are of course welcome, but legal arguments are badly misplaced
Trump's Executive Order On Immigration, Annotated here is the full EO. If you cannot open the NPR link here is another link to the full executive order- http://documents.latimes.com/read-d...mps-executive-order-immigration-and-refugees/
Good find. That said, there's no wonder the court put it on hold until the legal beagles sort it out. BUT, it seems to me that putting the delay in place does not allow for the whole immigration issue to be sorted out running in parallel with continuing a poor practice.
1. Apparently Bloomberg has such documents...you might check with them. 2. Any idiot with money to waste can file a court challenge...and from what I have read of these, they are wasting their money on frivolous BS. But hey, if you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bulltwinkle. FYI, I'll put my personal integrity AND knowledge of the Constitution up against any snowflake you want to produce, including Schmidt and Soros, Braverman or any tech CEO involved in this horsepucky.
1. You were the one making the positive claim. If Bloomberg has the evidence, as you suggest supporting your claim, then your claim would be all the stronger for citing Bloomberg's evidence; if it actually exists. All you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. Referencing some anonymous blogger(s) writing opinion pieces for Zero Hedge under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden" is not offering much by way of confidence in the quality or accuracy of their reportage. Zero Hedge - Wikipedia Even if Google had funded the bulk of the legal cost / resources of preparing this particular amicus brief; that doesn't of itself invalidate the brief's legal arguments. Should the court give leave for their brief to be considered, the legal arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of how the brief was funded and by whom. 2. Anyone can lodge an amicus brief, as you have suggested, but its acceptance by the court is discretional, at the pleasure of the court. Smearing, by inference, the proponents of the brief as idiots with money to waste, doesn't actually say anything about the validity of the legal arguments their brief is relying upon. 3. You still haven't explained why, in your expert opinion, the brief's legal arguments are frivolous, and a waste of money. You have merely discounted the brief as "BS", without explaining why it is BS. 4. See bullet point #3 above. 5. Setting up straw men ("...Schmidt and Soros, Braverman or any tech CEO...") as foils to your personal integrity and expertise in US constitutional law is irrelevant to the legal merits of the "Technologies Companies and other Businesses" amicus brief itself...The only authorities that count with that kind of adjudication, are the Appeals Court and SCOTUS judges who may consider the amicus brief, and for whom, constitutional law is their stock in trade. A repetitious calling the brief BS, bulltwinkle, and horsepucky, doesn't help your position very much. Explaining why you think it so, may actually be helpful, but shying away from doing that is all that we are seeing.
I do not think either one of you @chimo and @chelloveck will ever agree on this immigration issue. Many look at the label/political party that caused this controversy and refuse to stop think and research. Some have been feeling so beat up after 8 years of Obama, that Trump issuing this order is enough. I think after watching the attacks in Nice, Istanbul and Brussels, it finally feels safe to have a leader say, enough not on my watch.
1. The Zero Hedge piece references Bloomberg, yet ignore that and focus on Zero hedge. Come on, Chell, this kind of rhetorical nonsense is so beneath you. 2. I merely pointed out that Google is funding this...any other implications are all of your own making, not mine. More rhetorical gamesmanship. I have stated why this EO is Constitutional a few times already, perhaps in other threads. Quite simply, it does not establish a religious test, it puts restrictions on immigration based on country of origin, something that has been done in the past by multiple administrations of both parties with no hissy fits. I read their challenges...they are, to put it mildly, frivolous. There is nothing in the ban to indicate that it is based upon religion only, if there was, I would also be opposing it. Now if you can tell us, specifically, what is unconstitutional about this ban in your opinion, I am all ears. Hopefully you can make a better case than our wunderkind techie CEOs have. Finally, it seems our discussion is making people uncomfortable. I'm not sure what we can do to assure them that we are simply having a discussion. You're too far away for us to meet and get a pic of us kissing and hugging in a nice warm shower, so I am at a loss at how to comfort everyone that were just being who we are. Any ideas?
That is not totally correct. The Constitution does not grant rights, it merely outlines the powers, responsibilities and limits of the federal government (and perhaps the state governments too since the 14th Amendment). Thus, the Constitution applies to the government, meaning that the government must abide by the Constitution when going about it's business...no matter whom it is doing business with. In the case of immigration, for example, a ban based on religion would be unconstitutional as per the 1st Amendment. That does not mean that we are bestowing rights on to foreigners, it means the government is barred from discriminating based on religion. Do you see the difference? That said, IMO, this ban does not discriminate based on religion.
I believe our government does have the ability to deny rights to non citizens outside the US. Think Gitmo. I personally saw no constitutional issue with that. If they banned ALL immigration of everyone except for people with certain jobs and their immediate family I would be OK with that too. I think the constitution defines who the "people" are pretty well and that doesn't include non citizens outside the us. I don't think a non us person has any right to bring a constitutional challenge up in court. If the governement wants to have a religion banned from immigration imho it is ok (shitty but ok) because the first ammendment doesn't apply to non citizens in other countries. Now if they wanted to deport people or punish people here for having a certain religion that is a NO GO. They are part of "the people" At this point.
The supreme law of the land governing the conduct of the government is the US Constitution. As per that document, government does not have to power to deny anyone their unalienable rights without due process of law. One does not have to be a US citizen to have the unalienable human rights that are mentioned and/or guaranteed in our founding document...they, like us, were born with those rights. That said, yes, we do grant the government the power to limit who may or may not enter this country, work in this country or become a citizen of this country...but the GOVERNMENT is constrained by the Constitution in how that is accomplished.
