Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Deleted]

Rather than believing the people who are supposed to protect us are doing their jobs, we should believe that giving terrorists recruiting help is the answer!

Maybe stop killing brown children and they'll hate you less?

Just a thought...

[Hottage]

I look forward to Trump's impotent rage on this matter.

Trump has no time for trivial, meaningless things like creating incoherent tweet storms...
He's still too busy revelling in the success of his 30-day plan to destroy Daesh.

[Vargur]

I look forward to Trump's impotent rage on this matter.

Like in this case https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/c..._dogg/deysyda/

[Bakis]

Haha the boozo cant even sign a EO.

[Deleted]

Trump: “The next Muslim ban will be unbeatable in court.”

Judge: “You just called it a Muslim ban again.”

Trump: “No I didn’t.”

[Astalnar]

A ban based on religion violates the 1st amendment.

For God's sake, how can it be a ban based on religion, when cca 85% of world's muslim population can still enter the country?

Yes, he has the authority to say who can and cannot come to the country, but he cannot ban them based on religion. If he does, it will be struck down like it was here based on the first amendment.

Yes he can, if he wants he could actually impose a restriction based on religion. It was done in the past already. There is already a precedent. And still, President Trump is doing no such thing. And the constitution of USA applies only to citizens of USA, not a single person more, it's meaningless anywhere else in the world. Your laws are only good within your jurisdiction, and the judiciary power is not the one that decide where its limits begin and end.

[Wyrt]

For God's sake, how can it be a ban based on religion, when cca 85% of world's muslim population can still enter the country?

The judge explained that in his decision.

[Erwarth]

For God's sake, how can it be a ban based on religion, when cca 85% of world's muslim population can still enter the country?

I'm not racist. One of my friend is black and I eat KFC

[Astalnar]

The judge explained that in his decision.

I can explain why the sun is wet and the moon green, but that still doesn't make it true. Your point?

[Deleted]

I can explain why the sun is wet and the moon green, but that still doesn't make it true. Your point?

Unlike the judge, you don't meet the requirements to give the masses an opinion on the EO that matters.

[Astalnar]

Unlike the judge, you don't meet the requirements to give the masses an opinion on the EQ that matters.

Considering this particular judge's explanation, neither does he.

Derrick K. Watson of Federal District Court in Honolulu, wrote that a “reasonable, objective observer” would view even the new order as “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”
- NY Times

In translation; Because I don't like what he does, I don't care how he states it, I'm still going to strike it down.

Tell me again, how is that not obstruction of law, and meddling outside your jurisdiction?

[Orbitus]

For God's sake, how can it be a ban based on religion, when cca 85% of world's muslim population can still enter the country?



Yes he can, if he wants he could actually impose a restriction based on religion. It was done in the past already. There is already a precedent. And still, President Trump is doing no such thing. And the constitution of USA applies only to citizens of USA, not a single person more, it's meaningless anywhere else in the world. Your laws are only good within your jurisdiction, and the judiciary power is not the one that decide where its limits begin and end.

Name one time in the past that we have discriminated against immigrants and refugees using religion. I bet you can't name one. And no, the constitution doesn't only apply to US Citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering this particular judge's explanation, neither does he.



In translation; Because I don't like what he does, I don't care how he states it, I'm still going to strike it down.

Tell me again, how is that not obstruction of law, and meddling outside your jurisdiction?

No, Trump has stated many times that his intention of these bullshit refugee/immigrant bans were based on the religion of Islam. Just because he doesn't go after all of the Muslim countries, doesn't mean that he isn't targeting Muslims with this. He had a fucking clause in the first one to allow "minority religions" in. Which meant Christians in these countries. That is banning ENTIRELY on religion and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I will go with an educated judge over someone so ignorant of the law and constitution.

[thilicen]

Was expecting a shitstorm of new dimensions, gotta say this is disappointing. Get your shit together 'murica..

[SirBeef]

Did he add Saudi Arabia this time?

Of course not. He has business ties there. His latest comments after the ruling will make all future travel bans DoA.

[Logwyn]

Pretty sure he would need more than us just being at war.

Its Trump. I'm sure he'd be more than willing to test that "line"

[SirBeef]

Didn't scotus already say they wouldn't bother with the first one?

I'm still waiting for the Liar in Chief to show us the proof he has in his desk at Trump Tower.

- - - Updated - - -

Then who will Trumpy hire his resorts?

Or get to be his next wife?

- - - Updated - - -

A turd originally put forth by the Democrats no less.

Not even close. It was more of a watch list for those countries with tighter vetting. But you don't care about facts.

[Deleted]

Considering this particular judge's explanation, neither does he.

That's your personal understanding of the decision, a judge has to consult the laws to form an opinion, otherwise, the first strike down of the travel ban would not have happened - successfully. Trump would not have been forced to rewrite the travel ban EO.

In translation; Because I don't like what he does, I don't care how he states it, I'm still going to strike it down.

Tell me again, how is that not obstruction of law, and meddling outside your jurisdiction

Going into the latest court battle over President Trump’s revised travel ban, government lawyers were well aware that the administration’s incendiary — many say bigoted— rhetoric about Muslims would be a liability.

Before the initial executive order was even issued, opponents had pulled together a list of public statements by Trump and his surrogates calling for a “Muslim ban” and blaming Islam for the nation’s problems. The states that challenged the order in court did the same, saying the remarks were evidence of religious “animus,” showing that the administration intended to discriminate against Muslims.

In response, the government’s lawyers asked a federal judge to, effectively, look the other way. Instead of focusing on Trump’s past remarks, they argued, the judge should only consider the plain language of the revised order in deciding whether it violated the Constitution.

But in his blistering opinion Wednesday freezing Trump’s the new travel ban, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson said statements by Trump and his senior advisers were precisely what called its legality into question.

“These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” Watson wrote.

And early Thursday morning, a federal judge ruling in a related case in Maryland said the order was “the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” as The Washington Post reported. Though U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang’s opinion was narrower in scope than Watsons, he still found room to take aim at statements by Trump and his advisers, saying they showed “animus toward Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States.”

In short, Trump’s loose talk had come back to bite him yet again. Only this time the criticism was coming straight from a federal judge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

Trump and his followers do not understand, that personal views and wishes cannot be pressed into a baking mold and everybody will happily eat the cake. If Democrats have to accept responsibility for their failings, the other side should not claim opression by higher powers. Maybe they just suck at what they are doing. Maybe they should not have used Muslims to get the deplorables to fall in love with them.

[SirBeef]

And its REALLY important to think that terrorists will only strike within 120 days of the order being upheld. Cause that's it's duration. No WAY they would just wait till the 121st day to travel here.

Yeah, didn't Trump, along with all the Republicans at the time, give Obama crap for giving a withdraw date from Afghanistan?

[Gorsameth]

For God's sake, how can it be a ban based on religion, when cca 85% of world's muslim population can still enter the country?

"Its impossible for me murdering this black person to be racially motivated because I didn't kill every black person"

[SirBeef]

All the partisan junk aside for a moment, it will truly be disastrous for the opposition in every sense of the word if some screwball runs over a bunch of people with ISIS paraphernalia in his bedroom, and turns out he immigrated from Syria. For a 90-day travel ban, that's a heck of a risk to take.

And yeah, I think this was political. You can save me the impassioned explanations, I know how you feel and I know the arguments made by the court.

It already takes 18-24 months of vetting to get in from Syria, it's not like a flood of Terrorists will get in in those 120 days. What happens to the party in power if that happens after the ban if it were to be in place?