Here is a question for all the lawyers out there....
If Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on American muslims, that ban would fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, if Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on foreign muslims, would that ban fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder? To what extent do Constitutional protections given to Americans apply to foreigners?
apparently some confusion because I didnt include this in the original post.
Donald Trump's action was done by executive order, making the current action impossible to be considered a Bill of Attainder.
It was legal back in 2011 when Obama did the same ban from the same 7 countries that Trump did just now.
The ban is effective for 90 days, same as Obama did it then.
There was no outrage. Crickets.
Why is all the hysteria now? I think we all know the answer to that.
Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 06:00:18 AM
It was legal back in 2011 when Obama did the same ban from the same 7 countries that Trump did just now.
Only
one country:
Iraq, a country we were actually fighting a
war in, and the ban was based on actual FBI
evidence. You know, evidence? That stuff that corroborates the truth?
Here's some facts showing why there's no equivalence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.6d0f31debd5d
Fact checking from the mainstream media? Are you kidding me?
Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 07:05:36 AM
Fact checking from the mainstream media? Are you kidding me?
The highest standards of journalism are in the mainstream, which is why they're in the mainstream. Sourced and professional.
Garbage like InfoWars and Breitbart are not news.
Yeah. Right. For those whom want to be fooled.
There are millons of Americans whom disagreeing with you.
Quote from: fencerider on February 03, 2017, 05:31:18 AM
Here is a question for all the lawyers out there....
If Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on American muslims, that ban would fit the definition of a Bill of Attainer; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, if Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on foreign muslims, would that ban fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder? To what extent do Constitutional protections given to Americans apply to foreigners?
I don't think we have any lawyers in the forum. But it's an interesting question, and as it stands, I could only make guesses.
Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 07:40:34 AM
There are millons of Americans whom disagreeing with you.
Indeed. Half the population is of below average intelligence, and those "millons" number among them.
And you and your comerades are the most intelligent.
Yes, we see the evidence daily.
With Ashley Judd, Madonna, Linda Sarsour role models.
Something to be proud of?
Quote from: SGOS on February 03, 2017, 08:48:44 AM
I don't think we have any lawyers in the forum. But it's an interesting question, and as it stands, I could only make guesses.
Nobody (outside of Schengen in the EU) has a right to move to any other country, for visit or work. And Schengen is dying (it was a very bad idea). Ask the Japanese if it is OK to overstay your visa or move there permanently or work there ;-) That is the norm. Other countries play their own version of identity politics ... but none dare call them racists. The innocent Japanese stubbed their toes at Pearl Harbor. The UN may have some rules, and The Hague/Geneva Conventions may apply (particularly with refugees) .. but we know most countries ignore those.
The usual French way of avoiding something they don't like, isn't to repeal it, but to set up a single bureaucrat in an inaccessible office ... and give the visitors the Vogon treatment ;-)
Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 10:52:14 AM
And you and your comerades are the most intelligent.
Yes, we see the evidence daily.
With Ashley Judd, Madonna, Linda Sarsour role models.
Something to be proud of?
This is why we didn't draft college students to Vietnam ... because like Jane Fonda, why would have defected to the Left immediately ;-(
Technically, it's an immigration ban from select countries.
Unless, I am mistaken I don't think they're banning islam in the U.S.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 03, 2017, 07:47:57 PM
Technically, it's an immigration ban from select countries.
Unless, I am mistaken I don't think they're banning islam in the U.S.
that would be counter intuitive, since they now want to break separation of church and state. If they do that to islam to, then america officially becomes a new theocracy under christianity.. again!
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 03, 2017, 07:47:57 PMTechnically, it's an immigration ban from select countries.
Unless, I am mistaken I don't think they're banning islam in the U.S.
Correct. They're not banning Islam. It would be unconstitutional to ban Muslims simply for being Muslim. However, it might not necessarily be unconstitutional to ban all immigration from a bunch of majority-Muslim countries, drastically reducing Muslim immigration and resulting in a de facto Muslim ban (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-rudy-giuliani-how-legally-create-islam-us-immigration-entry-visa-new-york-a7552751.html).
Monstrous and unconstitutional VS monstrous and constitutional - it's all in the wording.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
Correct. They're not banning Islam. It would be unconstitutional to ban Muslims simply for being Muslim. However, it might not necessarily be unconstitutional to ban all immigration from a bunch of majority-Muslim countries, drastically reducing Muslim immigration and resulting in a de facto Muslim ban (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-rudy-giuliani-how-legally-create-islam-us-immigration-entry-visa-new-york-a7552751.html).
Monstrous and unconstitutional VS monstrous and constitutional - it's all in the wording.
Exactly. It's not unconstitutional. And even though there is a ban, it doesn't really even do anything. If this ban is really about terrorism, which it is not... it's about trade agreements... it just makes an extra step for "would-be terrorists".... assuming there will be "would-be terrorists". All anyone has to do is just go to a non-banned country first and fly in from there. So that shoots their logic in the foot. Maybe a little more difficult, but not much. All it really halts and slows is trade, which actually increases aggravation towards us in those countries and actually increases the likeliness of terrorist attacks. But it's not about islam at that point. It's about retaliation for us impoverishing their country.
Quote from: SGOS on February 03, 2017, 08:48:44 AM
I don't think we have any lawyers in the forum... I could only make guesses.
In that case the question is open to opinion, interpretation, and reverse engineering.
Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 06:00:18 AM
It was legal back in 2011 when Obama did the same ban from the same 7 countries that Trump did just now.
Whether or not it is legal now is a matter of opinion for the current Justice Department.
To be technically complete what Trump did was done by executive order, so it is impossible to be considered a Bill of Attainder.
Feb 3, 2017 court in Seattle had said the ban is illegal and there is now a temp injunction
Quote from: Munch on February 03, 2017, 07:52:38 PM
that would be counter intuitive, since they now want to break separation of church and state. If they do that to islam to, then america officially becomes a new theocracy under christianity.. again!
But but ... don't forget Jewish theocracy. Choose that, and every male gets a new circumcision just to make sure ;-))
Quote from: fencerider on February 03, 2017, 09:10:45 PM
In that case the question is open to opinion, interpretation, and reverse engineering.
Was your response to "with" or "without" attorneys? ;-)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-declines-to-extend-one-week-freeze-against-trumps-travel-ban/
This is why we can't have nice things ... two judges, three opinions ;-(
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 03, 2017, 08:42:15 PMAll it really halts and slows is trade, which actually increases aggravation towards us in those countries and actually increases the likeliness of terrorist attacks.
It really fucked people with green cards.
Imagine being a loyal, peaceable American citizen and getting the shock of your life at the airport, watching security slap handcuffs on you and your 5-year-old son. Hearing how you're considered a security risk by the orange buffoon who couldn't properly vet his own administration let alone the country's immigrants. The initial shock and confusion among those on the receiving side of this executive order might have been something akin to what Japanese Americans felt during WWII.
It is true, that exceptional processing could have been included, to take care of those who are most likely to be inconvenienced by this ... but I wouldn't do squat for anyone not already here.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the US Constitution
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" - Emma Lazarus
aye aye Atheon I agree with the idea of treating citizens and foreigners alike as described by the Constitution. But now that we have Frump in the white house, it would be nice to know where the legal limits are.
https://youtu.be/Q_tbvhw6ZbA
Quote from: fencerider
Here is a question for all the lawyers out there....
If Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on American muslims, that ban would fit the definition of a Bill of Attainer; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, if Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on foreign muslims, would that ban fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder? To what extent do Constitutional protections given to Americans apply to foreigners?
Quote from: fencerider on February 03, 2017, 09:10:45 PM
In that case the question is open to opinion, interpretation, and reverse engineering.
I would fall under the not a lawyer but I do have an opinion/interpretation...
A new law regarding a 'ban on American muslims' would be struck down as unconstitutional.
It is also most likely a 'ban on foreign muslims' would be struck down as unconstitutional for the same reason, Article 1 in the Bill of Rights.
As I understand it, Constitutional protections do not apply to foreigners before they pass thru customs (with caveats including a right to appeal often while being held in detention) and it gets really shady in the 100 mile border patrol authority:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
However, the current immigration ban has a foundation in (as far as I know untested) law:
Quote
"(f) 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."
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html
In the above link, near the top of the page is a Previous document - Next document link which gives more authority for the current actions of the Trump EO such as this lengthy section in Previous document:
(B) Terrorist activities-
Below that is this semi-related clause:
(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-
I think at least some flavors of Islam would qualify as totalitarian.
Since the Constitution does only protect American citizens, I think at face value a law expressively prohibiting Muslims (or any religion) from coming into the country would be technically legal. The protection from religious infringement does not extent to people outside our domain.
Of course the law is generally taken at more than just face value, and as for those mechanics I have no idea what the legality would or wouldn't be.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 07:03:20 AM
Since the Constitution does only protect American citizens, I think at face value a law expressively prohibiting Muslims (or any religion) from coming into the country would be technically legal. The protection from religious infringement does not extent to people outside our domain.
Of course the law is generally taken at more than just face value, and as for those mechanics I have no idea what the legality would or wouldn't be.
Action beyond the law ... is presumption or force majeur. States do this all the time. The idea of international law, is an interesting idea, observed in the breech. Hence a treaty between the US and Iran, that is observed in the center, but broken at the edges. Under neoLiberalism, the US government has tried to develop mechanisms in international law, particular against tax dodging, that allow US law to transcend US boundaries. Non-US governments have a legitimate problem with this. Saudi Arabia does something similar, they want their shariah law against defamation of Muhammad, extended to all countries. For the Saudis, every web page, every Facebook post, every Trump twitter, would have to be vetted by a Sunni imam.
Quote from: Atheon on February 03, 2017, 11:13:33 PM
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the US Constitution
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" - Emma Lazarus
95% of the world isn't American and spit on Americans, with some justification. Of course the ideals of narrative control, do find admirers both within and without US borders. For others, it gives reason to make war on the US (I am looking at you GB). The "all created equal" wasn't constitutional or statutory law, but it provided the inspiration for the US Civil War. Ideals today may do that again. Will you kill to fulfill the ideal of the Statue of Liberty ... while being an ex-pat? MLK wasn't willing to kill for what he believed, but he was willing to die for it. He said if you don't have something you are willing to die for, you aren't a full human being. Are you a full human being, even if a pacifist?
NPR interviewed a Muslim Family that had permission to move to the US. I can't remember what country they were from. At the airport they were told they were no longer allowed to travel to the US, and were sent home. They are living with friends now because they had sold their home. In addition, they lost thousands of dollars on the Airline tickets that were cancelled.
While this doesn't address legality, it does speak to poorly thought out policy and callous disregard for permissions they had previously received. Of course, this was NPR and probably can't be trusted like those videos guys make for Utube.
Quote from: SGOS on February 04, 2017, 07:36:02 AM
NPR interviewed a Muslim Family that had permission to move to the US. I can't remember what country they were from. At the airport they were told they were no longer allowed to travel to the US, and were sent home. They are living with friends now because they had sold their home. In addition, they lost thousands of dollars on the Airline tickets that were cancelled.
While this doesn't address legality, it does speak to poorly thought out policy and callous disregard for permissions they had previously received. Of course, this was NPR and probably can't be trusted like those videos guys make for Utube.
No, you must disbelieve everyone and everything ... the CIA has ordered it to be so! I suspect the story is correct. Government action and inaction is frequently a pain in the ass, even enough to incite violence. Yes, situations like this could have been anticipated and ameliorated ... but the government isn't very good at that, even for its own citizens. The correct answer is for the family to sue in civil court for damages ... and lobby their Congressman if they are US citizens. Crickets ....
Quote from: SGOS on February 04, 2017, 07:36:02 AM
NPR interviewed a Muslim Family that had permission to move to the US. I can't remember what country they were from. At the airport they were told they were no longer allowed to travel to the US, and were sent home.
An American citizen, Tronco wanted her mother, 65, and father, 75, to move here from Iran and help raise her son....
After being approved for an American visa, Tronco's parents sold their home. On Sunday,
they went to the airport in Iran, but were turned away.
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381443897/news-from-wnyc-new-york-public-radio/partials?start=placeholder
Sooo I am unsure if it was the airline or Iranians who prevented these people from boarding the plane or if their visa was cancelled by the ban.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-iran-idUSKBN15C0NR?il=0
Bummer for them they will have to wait a bit longer for their live in babysitters but I am sure they will find a way to get by.
Quote from: Baruch on February 04, 2017, 07:39:40 AM
The correct answer is for the family to sue in civil court for damages ... and lobby their Congressman if they are US citizens. Crickets ....
Yes, and I'd call the airline also. The Airline may or may not show some compassion for their situation, and at least refund their money.
Quote from: fencerider on February 03, 2017, 05:31:18 AM
Here is a question for all the lawyers out there....
If Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on American muslims, that ban would fit the definition of a Bill of Attainer; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, if Donald Trump was to get Congress to pass a ban on foreign muslims, would that ban fit the definition of a Bill of Attainder? To what extent do Constitutional protections given to Americans apply to foreigners?
There's been no indication that Trump wants to ban
American muslims, and your question leaves out what sort of form that ban would take. This really has nothing to do with that 3 month suspension of immigration from the seven countries on a list made by Obama under a bill signed by Obama.
This is also why the border wall is a thing, it is acknowledged in multiple sources, that besides Mexican drug dealers, actual terrorists use our Southern Border. I don't think the Wall will work, it is just a pork barrel ... but the concern is legitimate.
Quote from: pr126 on February 03, 2017, 06:00:18 AM
It was legal back in 2011 when Obama did the same ban from the same 7 countries that Trump did just now.
The ban is effective for 90 days, same as Obama did it then.
There was no outrage. Crickets.
Why is all the hysteria now? I think we all know the answer to that.
The 7 countries the Repubs refer to were places US citizens might not want to travel TO!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri-qzCqd5OM
The Right ... lying POS. The Left, opposite? The Left is fair and honest? Giggle ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNRGpA4Ph8
The fact that Trump used "As president, I'm privy to information the courts just don't understand" is meaningful enough to me that Trump knows absolutely nothing about the law. May the law fuck him in the ass while he continues on his infantile tirade.
Unfortunately both parties use "national security" to skirt the law, when they can. The war powers of the CinC are always .... ambiguous. Other nation's presidents/PM aren't commanders of the military. It will be interesting, for legal eagles, to see how this particular challenge goes ... about a limited temporary ban. I think a more permanent ban, would be more easily challenged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu4P60vXT5k
Quote from: Baruch on February 08, 2017, 04:03:51 AM
The Right ... lying POS. The Left, opposite? The Left is fair and honest? Giggle ...
Translated:
... lying POS (pieces of shit
1) on one side (Republicans)
... (unjust, inequitable, prejudiced, biased, discriminatory
2) (Democrats)
1Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pos)
2Google Synonyms (//http://)
Outside of the political arena, the negatives would be unforgiveable. Never mind that your descriptions seem to have gotten the parties mixed up, I get the point; From your perspective, they are both vile beyond contempt and are indistinguishable. Yet people get enamored with one of the parties, but oppose the other with deep hatred in spite of your negative observations of them both.
So how do you vote? I'm not asking which of the unpardonable parties you support. But rather, how do you undertake the decision to throw your weight around in the election booth? If you don't vote, do you have a way to be heard? You wouldn't be in this forum if you didn't want to be heard (even if seldom understood), but given the right to be a participant in Democracy, do you have a way to be heard that can be understood by someone that might use your meager offering in a constructive way?
Voting is an exercise in self deception and manipulation. Representative democracy is a joke. Direct democracy (ancient Athens) was a nightmare. You would never see me support the idea of direct internet voting (even secure voting). Republics simply don't have kings/queens .. they have some form of oligarchical rule. The US is no different, we have had an oligarchy from the beginning. People believe that voting makes a difference ... but only at the margins is this true, in most elections. Citizens need to have the false self assurance that they matter, that their anonymity and poverty aren't the only aspect of their existence. With voting, the anonymous, the poor ... feel a momentary jolt of power. Like when I get a shock in Winter time, walking across a carpet.
Civics 101 is false, in every country. But I am not a revolutionary, I am not indignant (except against self destructive stupidity). It is what it is.
Political correctness says ... only say good things or nothing at all. Keep head up ass, so you can't see reality (insert ideology or religion here). Everyone today gets a gold star, even if they don't participate. Snowflakes.
Are there any constructive ways in politics? I have told you people ... that you have to stop voting for self destruction. You need to replace the two old parties entirely ... you need to start that with a powerful third party. Trump is doing that, if he continues to Center, and marginalize the DNC and RNC. Is that clear enough? Instead you want to argue about the color of the chairs on the Lido deck of the Titanic. It is too late ... you are all Pod People.
On the OP .. the Republican Congress has reintroduced their bill, defeated several times ... to put the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrorist list. This is much more serious than a travel ban, since CAIR etc are participants with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a terrorist organization, outside the US. All depends on what our Saudi masters order us to do. Pure politics, since the US government and the Saudi government are both ... terrorist organizations.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:52:55 AM
Voting is an exercise in self deception and manipulation.
There is a sense of futility about it. No matter if the guy I vote for wins or loses, the dynamics behind the outcome seem odd and directed by irrelevant motivators that I usually don't relate to. If my guy wins, there is a certain satisfaction, but in the end, the satisfaction is usually no more meaningful than when the Boston Celtics beat the Chicago Bulls. Although it often seems as meaningful as life and death at the time. The underlying problems that we hope to correct usually remain. However, there are small victories now and then that ease suffering. Often times, these have nothing to do with politicians, but with quirks of the constitution interpreted by the court, which I guess is why the politicians want to control the courts. The damned courts get in the way of political ideology as they interpret constitutional philosophy, which might exist only because of the unintended consequences of the founding fathers.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:52:55 AM
Are there any constructive ways in politics? I have told you people ... that you have to stop voting for self destruction. You need to replace the two old parties entirely ... you need to start that with a powerful third party. Trump is doing that, if he continues to Center, and marginalize the DNC and RNC.
Trump is a Republican, not a third party. He was nominated by the right wing (the Republican Party). I kind of understand your position that he is a closet centrist with the interests of the public as his focus. But I believe that no matter how adamant you are about instructing the rest of us about reality, the idea that Trump has the welfare of the country in mind is probably as wishful as "knowing" a Democrat in the Whitehouse would not be there to help himself first.
You might be right. It's to early to tell, but with what we actually know about Trump at this time, you would be right entirely by accident. A positive outcome would be that Trump will rattle the Hell out of the cage that results in a bloodless anarchy, and a reconstruction. But that's far fetched enough to be insane. The system will beat him. He's still just a guy, not a dictator and his influence pales to the power of the two party system as it now exists. Want to take that bet? It would be a fun bet. Say just a dinner, not a bunch of money, because the outcome isn't really that glorious or worth much more than a friendly concession on either of our parts.
We may want to redefine the terms of deciding the bet, because frankly, I don't think you have a snowball's chance of winning under the terms I've defined at this point.
Honest self examination is the beginning of wisdom. There is no understanding without it. And no, I am no Trump advocate, but I do have a problem with TDS or HDS ... but I did use HDS as a tool against TDS until the inauguration. As long as the DNC continue to go full retard ... they are dead to me. The RNC has been full retard for just as long. The RNC had a chance to escape the Bushes with McCain in 2000, and screwed him in S Carolina primary. The DNC had a chance to escape the Clintons with Bernie in 2016, and screwed him too. I say screw both of them.
Yes, not everything is bad. Gays have at least won a temporary victory. But it will be temporary, if like African-Americans, they remain house-slaves of the Democrats. As long as they are "partisan" their gains can be overturned at every election. And yes, the court system was a wise if annoying part of the three branch system. So many people believe in Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes ... we want an absolute monarch, with our without a royal family. Americans say "l'etat cest moi".
I don't know who is a Republican or a Democrat, they are both sheep dip in wolve's clothing (deliberately said). The Clintons are Republicans. Nixon was more of a Democrat than they were, and less corrupt too. If Trump is Tea Party, if he can castrate the DNC and RNC ... then he is the new FDR, a traitor to his own class. But will that happen? I never predict the future, just what is possible, not what is certain. My tea leaves are silent, my tarot cards remain in their box, my zodiac sign is a sea-goat ... so I say ... baaa humbug.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 09:03:42 AM
On the OP .. the Republican Congress has reintroduced their bill, defeated several times ... to put the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrorist list. This is much more serious than a travel ban, since CAIR etc are participants with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a terrorist organization, outside the US. All depends on what our Saudi masters order us to do. Pure politics, since the US government and the Saudi government are both ... terrorist organizations.
Trump should simply sign an Executive Order prohibiting terrorism. That would solve EVERYTHING!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 05:15:45 AM
Trump should simply sign an Executive Order prohibiting terrorism. That would solve EVERYTHING!
Worked for Obama, Bush Jr etc.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:12:36 AM
Worked for Obama, Bush Jr etc.
Did it? Really? You just say stuff and don't support the statements. Does that bother you in the least?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:49:02 AM
Did it? Really? You just say stuff and don't support the statements. Does that bother you in the least?
Every thread has many subthreads and digressions. Do try to keep up ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 05:15:45 AM
Trump should simply sign an Executive Order prohibiting terrorism. That would solve EVERYTHING!
Yes it would. Cause if he did he would have to resign. He sure is scarin the crap out of me. No more Trump, no more terrorism.- case solved
Quote from: fencerider on February 14, 2017, 01:36:41 AM
Yes it would. Cause if he did he would have to resign. He sure is scarin the crap out of me. No more Trump, no more terrorism.- case solved
Right, LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM
A ban on Muslims is not illegal, but it might just start the war Trump wants.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 17, 2017, 12:16:34 AM
A ban on Muslims is not illegal, but it might just start the war Trump wants.
I (reluctantly) suspect it might be legal. The US Constitution does not generally apply to immigration laws. Want-to-be immigrants are not citizens. Immigration rules can be as stupid or intelligent as we want them to be.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 02:49:30 AM
I (reluctantly) suspect it might be legal. The US Constitution does not generally apply to immigration laws. Want-to-be immigrants are not citizens. Immigration rules can be as stupid or intelligent as we want them to be.
This debate was over in the US 1920, when free immigration to the US ended. The Red Scare, the Black Scare, the Mafia Scare and the KKK put an end to it. The War on Terrorism is a redo of the old Black Scare. The new anarchists are even wearing black again. Ignorance of history means ...
Quote from: Sorginak on February 17, 2017, 12:16:34 AM
A ban on Muslims is not illegal, but it might just start the war Trump wants.
How do you know that Trump wants to start a war ?
With whom?
How many wars has Obama started, supported, financed, provided weapons, and training?
Who set the middle east on fire? Who removed the rulers in Egypt, Libya, and tried and failed in Syria?
Replaced them with Muslim jihadist, and ISIS?
How many Muslim countries has he bombed?
All for the glory of the Nobel peace prize.
But Trump is to blame? Really?
Quote from: pr126 on February 17, 2017, 05:16:11 AM
How do you know that Trump wants to start a war ?
With whom?
How many wars has Obama started, supported, financed, provided weapons, and training?
Who set the middle east on fire? Who removed the rulers in Egypt, Libya, and tried and failed in Syria?
Replaced them with Muslim jihadist, and ISIS?
How many Muslim countries has he bombed?
All for the glory of the Nobel peace prize.
But Trump is to blame? Really?
Leftists never "get" irony.
Quote from: pr126 on February 17, 2017, 05:16:11 AM
How do you know that Trump wants to start a war ?
With whom?
How many wars has Obama started, supported, financed, provided weapons, and training?
Who set the middle east on fire? Who removed the rulers in Egypt, Libya, and tried and failed in Syria?
Replaced them with Muslim jihadist, and ISIS?
How many Muslim countries has he bombed?
All for the glory of the Nobel peace prize.
History shows what Obama did. What matters now is what Trump will do. Given his stated intentions before the elections, and his appointments and actions after his election, things do not look good. When our friends and allies think our President is acting insanely, that isn't a good sign...
But Trump is to blame? Really?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
It really fucked people with green cards.
Imagine being a loyal, peaceable American citizen and getting the shock of your life at the airport, watching security slap handcuffs on you and your 5-year-old son. Hearing how you're considered a security risk by the orange buffoon who couldn't properly vet his own administration let alone the country's immigrants. The initial shock and confusion among those on the receiving side of this executive order might have been something akin to what Japanese Americans felt during WWII.
And the Chump bunch said only 109 people were even affected by it! I wonder whose ass they pulled that number from?
Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 07:03:20 AM
Since the Constitution does only protect American citizens,
Not only citizens are protected - anyone in this country is protected. The constitution says "persons" not citizens.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 04:56:28 PM
Not only citizens are protected - anyone in this country is protected. The constitution says "persons" not citizens.
But you are unprotected at the border, from any customs agents on either side. The black line on the map is no-man's land. So you will loose any privacy, to any electronics, if you take your electronics across the US border in either direction.
PS - your rights are only valid to the extent that you can afford an expensive, persistent, competent attorney. ABA has this locked down.
From another thread ... nations have no friends or allies. We have temporary arrangements, because what we have is common is screwing the commoners.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 04:56:28 PM
Not only citizens are protected - anyone in this country is protected. The constitution says "persons" not citizens.
Good point. I will have to remember that applies in some situations. But most of the Constitution applies to actual citizens.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 03:07:59 AM
Good point. I will have to remember that applies in some situations. But most of the Constitution applies to actual citizens.
After Citizens United .. the only way to survive in America, is as a Subchapter S corporation. And that is why your comment is wrong, since corporations, including international corporations, are persons. Citizen means slave of the IRS ... which persons, like Apple Inc, are not.
Saudi Atabia deports 40,000 Pakistani workers over terror fears (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-deports-40000-pakistan-workers-terror-fears-attacks-counter-terrorism-a7578151.html)
QuoteThe Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has expelled almost 40,000 Pakistani migrant workers in the last four months, local media has reported.
Over 39,000 people have been deported since October 2016 over visa violations and security concerns, the Saudi Gazette reported, citing unnamed interior ministry officials. As well as crimes including drug trafficking, forgery and theft, an unknown number of those removed from the country were suspected to have links to Isis and other extremist groups, the paper said.
Where is the outrage, the demonstrations?
Crickets.
Merkel will have them all. They now qualify as refugees.
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 06:27:46 PM
your rights are only valid to the extent that you can afford an expensive, persistent, competent attorney.
Well if you want to put it that way, all of us are illegals...
Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 04:19:03 PM
Well if you want to put it that way, all of us are illegals...
That is what my native American friends say. Laugh it off. Notice Congress made no move to overturn Citizens United.
Quote from: pr126 on February 19, 2017, 09:51:01 AM
Saudi Atabia deports 40,000 Pakistani workers over terror fears (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-deports-40000-pakistan-workers-terror-fears-attacks-counter-terrorism-a7578151.html)
Where is the outrage, the demonstrations?
Crickets.
Merkel will have them all. They now qualify as refugees.
If Saudi Arabia asked you to jump, how high would you pr? Since it seems any time they do something shitty, that's an excuse for us to be shitty as well, because we are better than them (such logic).
Quote from: Shiranu on February 19, 2017, 05:02:17 PM
If Saudi Arabia asked you to jump, how high would you pr? Since it seems any time they do something shitty, that's an excuse for us to be shitty as well, because we are better than them (such logic).
Since the Petro-dollar and the original oil embargo of the 1970s, the US has been Saudi Arabia's bitch. Enjoying your tricks in the cat house, chica?
Quote from: Shiranu on February 19, 2017, 05:02:17 PM
If Saudi Arabia asked you to jump, how high would you pr? Since it seems any time they do something shitty, that's an excuse for us to be shitty as well, because we are better than them (such logic).
(https://jobloggz.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/obama-bow.png)
I heard that the Saudis donated £20 Million to Hillary towards buying the presidency.
Shame it didn't work out .
It's not a ban on Muslims. It is a 3 month suspension on travel from seven specific countries. Muslims from other countries can come in. Christians from those seven countries cannot. Nothing is being done to any US citizen who is a Muslim.
Please, be accurate in your criticism. You damage your own case when you distort that which you are criticizing.
I never said Trump made a ban on muslims. It was meant as future tense, because apparently Trump does want to ban all muslims.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forbids discrimination against immigrants based on their "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." It is really that clear and straightforward.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 01:33:23 AM
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forbids discrimination against immigrants based on their "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." It is really that clear and straightforward.
You are forgetting the other 250 million laws and regulations, that mutually contradict ... that have to be interpreted by a judge. There have been existing vetting process for travelers and immigrants, from every country ... Trump just wants the State Department to tweak the ones for 7 countries (out of over 200 countries) and the ban is temporary, until the State Department gets its act together. The State Department, actually had the "blind sheik" who first attacked the Twin Towers in 1993 .. admitted under a preference that was politically motivated. The "blind sheik" wasn't pro-American, or under threat by his home country, other than that he was a terrorist.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:55:03 AM
You are forgetting the other 250 million laws and regulations, that mutually contradict ... that have to be interpreted by a judge. There have been existing vetting process for travelers and immigrants, from every country ... Trump just wants the State Department to tweak the ones for 7 countries (out of over 200 countries) and the ban is temporary, until the State Department gets its act together. The State Department, actually had the "blind sheik" who first attacked the Twin Towers in 1993 .. admitted under a preference that was politically motivated. The "blind sheik" wasn't pro-American, or under threat by his home country, other than that he was a terrorist.
Discrimination isn't the same as reasonable "vetting". The latter is allowed, the former is not.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 09:01:30 AM
Discrimination isn't the same as reasonable "vetting". The latter is allowed, the former is not.
Well those countries aren't majority Amish are they? And they do send us terrorists, do they not? According to DHS they do.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 09:12:29 AM
Well those countries aren't majority Amish are they? And they do send us terrorists, do they not? According to DHS they do.
No, actually they don't. Fact quote please... Last I read the last person from any of those nations who committed a terrorist act was 1975 and that was an isolated event.
Put up or shut up.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 09:23:34 AM
No, actually they don't. Fact quote please... Last I read the last person from any of those nations who committed a terrorist act was 1975 and that was an isolated event.
Put up or shut up.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/terrorism-and-trumps-travel-ban/
Not 9/11 terrorists, those were mostly from our ally, Saudi Arabia. But still mostly people I wouldn't give a visa to. Just a simple need to tighten competency at the State Department after Hillary's incompetent but bloodthirsty tenure.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:38:30 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/terrorism-and-trumps-travel-ban/
Not 9/11 terrorists, those were mostly from our ally, Saudi Arabia. But still mostly people I wouldn't give a visa to. Just a simple need to tighten competency at the State Department after Hillary's incompetent but bloodthirsty tenure.
So, not a shred of evidence, but an assumption that no one who has attacked us here is a basis for policy? Are you even aware that legal immigrants from those places are highly vetted for years?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 08:07:19 AM
So, not a shred of evidence, but an assumption that no one who has attacked us here is a basis for policy? Are you even aware that legal immigrants from those places are highly vetted for years?
So you worked in the State Department during Hillary's tenure? If not, you are just a Hillary bot and Demo-crud.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 09:12:29 AM
Well those countries aren't majority Amish are they? And they do send us terrorists, do they not? According to DHS they do.
Yeah, well, so does Montana...
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 02, 2017, 04:48:03 PM
Yeah, well, so does Montana...
Good reason to wall up Montana and throw away the key ... actually Dick Cheney is from Wyoming ... wall that state up first.
News flash this country can make anything it wants legal. You think we got freedom of speech? LOL. The only thing it seems we have is the right to bare arms which honestly I don't know how I feel, I can see both sides.
These days if I wasn't a felon I think I might like to own a gun. All though I wouldN'T be like my dad and keep the cabinet unlocked and let assholic kids take them out when ever they want. If you saw the shit that goes on around that farm you'd probably have a heart attack.
any how back to topic. Legal isn't even a thing any more.
You know when I was a kid I read this book called animal farm...
Quote from: doorknob on March 03, 2017, 03:22:26 PM
News flash this country can make anything it wants legal. You think we got freedom of speech? LOL. The only thing it seems we have is the right to bare arms which honestly I don't know how I feel, I can see both sides.
These days if I wasn't a felon I think I might like to own a gun. All though I wouldN'T be like my dad and keep the cabinet unlocked and let assholic kids take them out when ever they want. If you saw the shit that goes on around that farm you'd probably have a heart attack.
any how back to topic. Legal isn't even a thing any more.
You know when I was a kid I read this book called animal farm...
Quite a few pigs around here, getting uppity too.
And quite a few people who can't tell Snowball from Napoleon.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 03, 2017, 06:20:39 PM
And quite a few people who can't tell Snowball from Napoleon.
Like the horse, we are all heading for the glue factory.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 01:33:23 AM
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forbids discrimination against immigrants based on their "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." It is really that clear and straightforward.
Thanks Cavebear. I'm not as good on laws as the Constitution. I guess with that law, it doesn't matter if it violates the Constitution.
But Baruch has brought up the point of contradiction. The law also says the president can block anyone that is considered a national security threat. So which law takes priority?
The US President is a Commander-in-Chief (thanks George Washington). This is unlike any other country. The war-making powers of the Presidency are ambiguous and touchy. Blocking foreign entrance ... is on the edge of war-making powers. The President carries out the laws of Congress, but with his/her interpretive spin. If the President determines that the State department isn't doing its job, he can shut all entrance to the US down ... until the State department is reorganized. And one could extend that, by being very slow in reorganizing. The original OP is no big deal compared to that. But R and D both want a new President, of their own choice ... Hillary vs Paul Ryan maybe. An election do over. But that isn't in the Constitution. The R and D people don't care for the Constitution, beyond lip service.
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2017, 01:07:26 PM
So you worked in the State Department during Hillary's tenure? If not, you are just a Hillary bot and Demo-crud.
One can have knowledge aside from being a State Dept employee. The rest of it is just gratuitous insult and not worthy of reply.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2017, 01:08:57 AM
One can have knowledge aside from being a State Dept employee. The rest of it is just gratuitous insult and not worthy of reply.
But all Bush people, all Clinton people, all Obama people (and so on going back to LBJ) are traitors, aren't they?
And without inside info on the State Department (and you admit neither of us have it) ... then we should shut up, other than bitching about things we don't know about. I do know about DoD medicine, that I can comment about, but won't because it is against regs for me to do so. You are retired, at least for awhile, you would be an expert in the internal conditions of the departments you worked for .. but only if you care to share.
Quote from: fencerider on March 04, 2017, 01:32:25 AM
Thanks Cavebear. I'm not as good on laws as the Constitution. I guess with that law, it doesn't matter if it violates the Constitution.
But Baruch has brought up the point of contradiction. The law also says the president can block anyone that is considered a national security threat. So which law takes priority?
As I understand it, the President can block individuals for national security reasons, but not whole classes of foreigners allowed in by law. And immigration laws are passed by Congress.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2017, 04:33:58 PM
As I understand it, the President can block individuals for national security reasons, but not whole classes of foreigners allowed in by law. And immigration laws are passed by Congress.
All laws are passed by Congress (except for those nasty signing statements so recently abused by the last two Presidents). And Congress passes turds too.