Trump travel ban blocked nationwide

[Breccia]

So, either these judges have no idea what is going on in the world, or they made a purely political decision (selling their souls for the Dem agenda). You decide!

Or...and bear with me, this is a difficult thing to work with...you are wrong.

For example:
a) Claiming the ban isn't discriminating against Muslims, because it does not ban all Muslims, is a stupid argument. It is discriminatory, because Trump pledged to a Christian group to let Christians through, and also he specifically said he wanted a Muslim ban while running. The court specifically called this out in the decision.
b) Your citing of 50 convictions of people who hadn't killed anyone, and were caught even without any form of ban, is a ridiculous way to try to prove the ban will make us safer. It is very, very hard to be safer than "terrorists were caught before anyone died".
c) You make no reference to the thousands of people killed by terrorists not on the ban list. Which, heh, "debunked your decision in two seconds"
d) 29 pages of decision that you filter down to two points you claim to destroy in two seconds is laughable. You cherry picked, and even then, still got rotten cherries.

Maybe you should stick with "I disagree". Because, when it comes to what's legal/Constitutional and what's not, I will take 3 people who:
a) Graduated from Yale, appointed by Carter, served since 1980
b) Graduated from Yale, appointed by W, served since 2002
c) Graduated from Stanford, appointed by Obama, served since 2014

over
d) Random Internet Guy with no known legal experience, chosen since nobody, claims they can handle a court decision big enough to be taken to the federal level in two seconds.

But you keep trying. You keep insisting your untrained, unfounded opinion is better than three people appointed to be leading experts in the matter. You keep projecting, and cherry picking, and flat-out misreading the results until you find something that agrees with your preconceived notions.

P.S. Also, your argument will be much stronger if you don't insist a Republican judge is "selling his soul" for the Dem agenda. It kinda makes you look like a raving lunatic a tad biased.

[ringpriest]

Discussions of the threat posed by "terrorism" aside (something that, imnsho, is vastly over-hyped because people are innumerate and appealing to their base instincts works), I'm rather shocked to see so little discussion of the blatant power-grab represented by Trump's Executive Order (which in turn appears to have been a significant factor in why the court declined to overturn the current hold on it).

Trump's administration literally argued in front of the court that if the President says "national security" the court has no jurisdiction,

"Judicial second-guessing of the President's determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration"

(If you can find the audio of the hearing (which I don't have a handy link to), the clearly embarassed attorney making that argument to the court is both hilarious and quietly terrifying.)
From the 9th Circuit Court Order,

Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

Then you've got Trump's senior policy adviser making the same claim,

"I want to say something very clearly, and this is going to be very disappointing to the people protesting the president and the people in Congress, like [Senate Democratic Leader Charles E.] Schumer, who have attacked the president for his lawful and necessary action: The president’s powers here are beyond question,” Miller said on Fox News.

Appearing also on ABC News, Miller said, “A district judge in Seattle cannot force the president of the United States to change our laws and our Constitution because of their own personal views. The president has the power … to suspend the entry of aliens when it’s in the national interest.”

Miller said on CBS News that the judiciary was acting like “a supreme branch of government.”

"How dare the courts tell the emperorpresident that he can't do something!?!"

Y'all have an aspirational dictator on your hands over there - I suppose you can say it's "fortunate" in that at least he's a stupid and incompetent jackass at almost everything, including trying to be an autocrat.

[Alydael]

- - - Updated - - -

Or...and bear with me, this is a difficult thing to work with...you are wrong.

For example:
a) Claiming the ban isn't discriminating against Muslims, because it does not ban all Muslims, is a stupid argument. It is discriminatory, because Trump pledged to a Christian group to let Christians through, and also he specifically said he wanted a Muslim ban while running. The court specifically called this out in the decision.
b) Your citing of 50 convictions of people who hadn't killed anyone, and were caught even without any form of ban, is a ridiculous way to try to prove the ban will make us safer. It is very, very hard to be safer than "terrorists were caught before anyone died".
c) You make no reference to the thousands of people killed by terrorists not on the ban list. Which, heh, "debunked your decision in two seconds"
d) 29 pages of decision that you filter down to two points you claim to destroy in two seconds is laughable. You cherry picked, and even then, still got rotten cherries.

Maybe you should stick with "I disagree". Because, when it comes to what's legal/Constitutional and what's not, I will take 3 people who:
a) Graduated from Yale, appointed by Carter, served since 1980
b) Graduated from Yale, appointed by W, served since 2002
c) Graduated from Stanford, appointed by Obama, served since 2014

over
d) Random Internet Guy with no known legal experience, chosen since nobody, claims they can handle a court decision big enough to be taken to the federal level in two seconds.

But you keep trying. You keep insisting your untrained, unfounded opinion is better than three people appointed to be leading experts in the matter. You keep projecting, and cherry picking, and flat-out misreading the results until you find something that agrees with your preconceived notions.

P.S. Also, your argument will be much stronger if you don't insist a Republican judge is "selling his soul" for the Dem agenda. It kinda makes you look like a raving lunatic a tad biased.

1) Its not a stupid argument at all. If the goal of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, why would it only have one of the top ten Muslim countries on it? That makes no sense at all really. Try to think outside of the agenda and use common sense. If I wanted to discriminate against Muslims, I would target the top countries, that would be the most effective way to do it.

2) Luckily we caught them. One of them was plotting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction, how many would have died? So we have: temporary ban for better vetting (note the "temporary") or let them all in and hope no one gets killed. Hmmm.... let me think about this (really? Is that really your point?)

3) Yes, people who are not terrorists kill people too. We have known this for thousands of years. That is still no reason to potentially increase the number of killers in your country (what sane person would do that? Put the agenda aside for a second and try to think with logic).

4) The two main points the judges cited (not me, they declared these the main reasons in many interviews) are that it is discriminatory and does not make us safer. They said those are the main points, not me.

As for the "selling your soul." I said that because when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the law, you are taking an oath. They broke that oath over agenda driven politics, c'mon that is pathetic. Call me a "raving lunatic" because I expect an adult that swear an oath on the Bible to keep their oath. I don't know, maybe I am crazy (or akin to a "raving lunatic") but I expect people to honor their word.

The facts don't support their decision (on either count).

Spin it, twist it, call the Senate Report on Immigration "false facts" (look at the authors of the report, mostly dem), call me names, do whatever you have to do. I know the election isn't over for you guys and you will continue to hammer right out of the Dem playbook as you go, but go ahead because:

That's what cost you this election, so stick with a losing plan- if you will.

That's the beautiful thing about facts, they are true regardless of your agenda. You can try to dispute or twist them anyway, you can call people ever name in the book. It will still never change the facts. In fact, each word or insult you utter just goes to prove how deep in the agenda you have buried yourself- you can no longer even see the other side.

- - - Updated - - -

I think no one argues that you could probably stop some criminals from entering the country. The Trump administration claimed that this ban would be NECESSARY to uphold National Security. I am a law student from Germany and this claim from the Trump administration is nearly impossible to be accepted by any constitutional court around Europe...and this is true for the USA too. Let me try to explain it without going to deep into law terms...

1. It is true that there are major difference in rights depending on your status in the country. US citizen have far more specific, and therefore stronger, rights then foreigners. But every country in Europe and also the USA have "weaker" and more abstract parts in their constitution that target every human beeing. These rights are inherent to every human beeing. An obvious example is the freedom of speech.

2. In this case the court would have to examine the EO and judge if the possibility of this EO to enhance the National Security is worth the impact on freedom and especially religious freedom (also a right given to every human beeing)for all people the EO would affect. The main problem here is likely not even the travel ban...the problem is the lack of any active try to minimize the damage done for the greater good (National Security). The opposite is the case...instead of clearly distancing themselfes from permanent bans, the EO includes articles that allow several agencies to commend on which countries should be included in coming Travel Bans. They also claim the ban is necessary for reviewing the visa process and fix problems...not because the ban is necessary for implementing these changes but because of staffing issues. I dont want to exaggerate to much here so i will put it to a simple end here:

For the EO to be in sync with US Constitution it is necessary that:

a) The EO has a legitimate reason (National Security - check)
b) The EO needs to be able to support point a) (questionable, but most judges would give Trump the benefit of the doubt - check)
c) The EO needs to be the best compromise between violating peoples rights and achieving its goal (probably no due to missing attempts to limit damage for rightful people - x)
d) The possible effect on the National Security needs to be more important then guarding the rights of the people (no because there are only a few cases of criminals beeing stopped by this ban)


I understand that it is easy to look at the data and see the few people that pose a possible risk to the country...like i said i am from Germany and we have similar debates over refugees and imigrants...but we are humans...you have to see the thousands of people who dont deserve this treatment at all. To look at it from another angle...think about crimes done by immigrants form Sweden, Norway, Germany or actually every country...would you say a travel ban for citizen of these countries would be the right choice?...i dont think it would do any good.

Freedom isnt free...there will be crimes from people you let into your country...but if taking the rights away from other people, who have done NOTHING wrong, is the only way to achieve total Security...well that is a country that thinks that only there own lifes matter.

The travel ban is just a temporary travel ban because the previous administrations were so irresponsible about this (not just Obama, Bush as well). If the whole immigration/ refugee situation was handled responsibly, we wouldn't be at this point.

A government's duty is to protect it's citizens. Not the world. Even if the travel ban affected my country, I would still be for it.

I am willing to give the government some time to make sure it gets the vetting right. Then we can open the doors again.

I would be willing to put the refugees in temporary camps until the government sorts out the vetting. They could learn English there, our laws, recieve food/ medicine and even job training while we vet them. It would be a great temporary solution while we sort this out, but the ACLU would sue immediately- which is why we can't do it.

Before you question my "humanity," the taxes in my check every month go to fund hundreds of charities. Not only that, but I give to charity outside of my taxes as well. I am not against refugees at all, I just want it to be done in a responsible, safe manner. is that too much to ask? (I guess it is nowadays)

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I am not against refugees at all, I just want it to be done in a responsible, safe manner. is that too much to ask? (I guess it is nowadays)

Everybody wants this. The problem is that this travel ban isn't responsible...nor is it likely to make America noticeably safer.

[Deleted]

- - - Updated - - -



1) Its not a stupid argument at all. If the goal of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, why would it only have one of the top ten Muslim countries on it? That makes no sense at all really. Try to think outside of the agenda and use common sense. If I wanted to discriminate against Muslims, I would target the top countries, that would be the most effective way to do it.

2) Luckily we caught them. One of them was plotting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction, how many would have died? So we have: temporary ban for better vetting (note the "temporary") or let them all in and hope no one gets killed. Hmmm.... let me think about this (really? Is that really your point?)

3) Yes, people who are not terrorists kill people too. We have known this for thousands of years. That is still no reason to potentially increase the number of killers in your country (what sane person would do that? Put the agenda aside for a second and try to think with logic).

4) The two main points the judges cited (not me, they declared these the main reasons in many interviews) are that it is discriminatory and does not make us safer. They said those are the main points, not me.

As for the "selling your soul." I said that because when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the law, you are taking an oath. They broke that oath over agenda driven politics, c'mon that is pathetic. Call me a "raving lunatic" because I expect an adult that swear an oath on the Bible to keep their oath. I don't know, maybe I am crazy (or akin to a "raving lunatic") but I expect people to honor their word.

The facts don't support their decision (on either count).

Spin it, twist it, call the Senate Report on Immigration "false facts" (look at the authors of the report, mostly dem), call me names, do whatever you have to do. I know the election isn't over for you guys and you will continue to hammer right out of the Dem playbook as you go, but go ahead because:

That's what cost you this election, so stick with a losing plan- if you will.

That's the beautiful thing about facts, they are true regardless of your agenda. You can try to dispute or twist them anyway, you can call people ever name in the book. It will still never change the facts. In fact, each word or insult you utter just goes to prove how deep in the agenda you have buried yourself- you can no longer even see the other side.

- - - Updated - - -



The travel ban is just a temporary travel ban because the previous administrations were so irresponsible about this (not just Obama, Bush as well). If the whole immigration/ refugee situation was handled responsibly, we wouldn't be at this point.

A government's duty is to protect it's citizens. Not the world. Even if the travel ban affected my country, I would still be for it.

I am willing to give the government some time to make sure it gets the vetting right. Then we can open the doors again.

I would be willing to put the refugees in temporary camps until the government sorts out the vetting. They could learn English there, our laws, recieve food/ medicine and even job training while we vet them. It would be a great temporary solution while we sort this out, but the ACLU would sue immediately- which is why we can't do it.

Before you question my "humanity," the taxes in my check every month go to fund hundreds of charities. Not only that, but I give to charity outside of my taxes as well. I am not against refugees at all, I just want it to be done in a responsible, safe manner. is that too much to ask? (I guess it is nowadays)

1. As i have written already i am from Germany. We did exactly what you suggested with refugees mostly from Syria. There is a law in Germany that permits the gouvernment to restricts the right of refugees (garantied by our constitution) to move freely through our country. Instead of moving through the country they stay for up to a month in a camp (because of the large amount of refugees roughly two years ago this were often convention centers or large sport buildings). This time is used to identify the person, start the process of asylum, reviewing their chance of getting the permission to stay and ultimatly spreading them according to policy in the country or send them back. There were problems with identification and single outbreaks of violence (normal because of the huge mass of people in small places). Our gouvernment was also not really prepared for the numbers...civilians helped and we had the situation under control the whole time. We accepted in the past two years roughly 2,4-3 million people in our country...Germany is still standing...we arent choking under crime and terror.

2. Let us compare that to the USA...in Germany the refugees were standing at our borders and that made it difficult to handle. Refugees who make it to the US have been not only vetted by the UNHCR (UN refugee agency) and then redirected to countries like the USA, but the US is vetting them again through 9 different agencies and weekly hearings before they even set one foot on USA territory. For syrian refugees these process is even longer. Do you know these process? If yes i cannot understand what isnt "responsible" about the way it is done already. Your Visa system is an entirely different process and i agree that it needs improvements...but this has nothing to do with how refugees are handled.

3. The travel ban may be temporary...but if you have read the whole thing you know that it includes a meeting between the Trump administration and the agencies after sixty days for discussing the necessarity of adding more countries and time to the "temporal" ban. This makes the temporal ban potential permanent.

4. The travel ban will do harm in many ways. Military advisor from foreign countries on the list often risk their life and that of their families by working with the US. Do you understand that this ban will possibly kill people because the USA leaves them in reach of their enemies after years of vetting? Green Card holders were send to countries they dont even come from, imprisoned for days or denied their right to return to the country they live in for years. But what will it do to improve national security? From 2004-2014 71 Americans died through terrorism on US soil...yes this is terrible and nobody will disagree. The travel ban will do harm to much more people and if you dont care about them i will question your humanity regardless of how much money you give to charity.


Little addition: If you really want to do something for national security...look at gun violence. 74 toddlers shot somebody alone in the last year...

[ranzino]

I'm sure it was mentioned ago: you can write EO and put a temporary hold on refugees and sort it out in time. But you have to welcome all others already vetted prior to EO's announcement.

[AndaliteBandit]

I can't force activist judges to uphold the facts.

Who appointed these activist judges again?

[ranzino]

Who appointed these activist judges again?

Obama did !!!! one of them. of course judge Michelle Friedland must have infected the other two ?

[JohnBrown1917]

Makes you wonder why there needs to be President, when you can't even rule your own country.

Pathetic.

Welcome to checks and balances and how the power is split in any proper democracy.
Giving all power to 1 guy is ridiculous.

[Bdatik]

Makes you wonder why there needs to be President, when you can't even rule your own country.

Pathetic.

President and Dictator are not the same thing.

[wunksta]

Cant you read?
The US constitution applies to citizens, and people residing (temporary or not) in the US.
It does not apply to non citizens, not resident in the US.
What part of that was hard to understand?

My mistake then. The part that says "in the US" is what confused me. It sounded like you were saying the constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens/non-residents in the US. "Not resident in the US" is an awkward way to phrase what you were trying to say, and it seemed more like a typo. Maybe if you said "not residing" or "non-citizens outside of the US" or "not located in the US" that would be clearer, to me at least.

[Melusine]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38864253



Once again the courts have ruled against Trump and his travel ban.

Once again, the courts are legislating from the bench. They should be removed from office.

[Elegiac]

Once again, the courts are legislating from the bench. They should be removed from office.

So you're in favor of dictatorship, then?

[Melusine]

You can read the judges decision, you don't need to know the law. They said that there is no proof that there are dangerous people coming from those countries. No one is disputing what they said or what their decision is based on (except maybe you? Although I am not sure since it seems all you are doing is hurling insults without any real substance in your posts, a common liberal troll tactic).

I linked a report from a bi partisan source (The Senate) that clearly showed criminal terrorist convictions (including for weapons of mass destruction) in the last two years from people from those countries on the travel ban.

So either the judges didn't read the report or they ignored it because it didn't agree with their agenda. Either way, they are either uninformed about matters concerning their profession (by not reading the relevant information for the case) or they ignored the facts to promote an agenda (which goes against the vow all judges take). Pick your poison.

As for "your side," I am independent- I don't like either party and i am not a follower of someone else's agenda. I look at the facts of each case and try to decide what I think is best. If the Dems or Pubs agree with me, I don't really care. Even if they do agree with me, I doubt it is for the same reasons that were relevant to me.

Despite all the facts, you are probably right though (since you posted an emoji after all........ ha ha)

Absent the fact that one of the powers we authorize to the President is the ability to keep anyone he deems subject to not be allowed into our country for any reason for however long it shall be deemed necessary. The idea that it impinges upon state commerce, real or imagined threat, or because any other reason is not a concern. What these cocksucker judges did by refusing it is legislated from the bench in contradiction to the written law, and they need to be removed from office if they can't do the simplest deed of their office.

[Deleted]

Perhaps monarchy works better for you.

Actually, Constitutional Monarchs have less powers than the POTUS.

[Melusine]

So you're in favor of dictatorship, then?

Why do we have laws? That is a power authorized by law, and a set of judges don't like the law, and think they should be able to rewrite at will. That isn't a dictatorship, dumbass.

infracted - minor flaming

[Deleted]

Why do we have laws? That is a power authorized by law, and a set of judges don't like the law, and think they should be able to rewrite at will. That isn't a dictatorship, dumbass.

It's called "judicial check of the executive power". Judges are there to check the legality of the new laws, else it would be a dictatorship.

It's the same in every single constitutional democracy in the world ever since the American and French Revolutions.

[Melusine]

It's called "judicial check of the executive power". Judges are there to check the legality of the new laws, else it would be a dictatorship.

It's the same in every single constitutional democracy in the world ever since the American and French Revolutions.

It wasn't a law it was an executive order. And it is perfectly constitutional. No one has a right to enter the US, and if there is reason to believe there will be a problem, that is why we have a president to do that. I don't care if it isn't "fair". Life isn't fair and foreigners have no expectations for rights in this country, only their own.

[Deleted]

It wasn't a law it was an executive order. And it is perfectly constitutional. No one has a right to enter the US, and if there is reason to believe there will be a problem, that is why we have a president to do that. I don't care if it isn't "fair". Life isn't fair and foreigners have no expectations for rights in this country, only their own.

Exactly, life isn't fair, your opinion doesn't really matter to what was decided by the appeal courts. Checks and balances.

[Wells]

Why do we have laws? That is a power authorized by law, and a set of judges don't like the law, and think they should be able to rewrite at will. That isn't a dictatorship, dumbass.

So you're just entirely opposed to judicial review?