Trump's 2nd Immigration Ban Blocked

[Adolecent]

There is a saying in Dutch which says that "even a donkey doesn't bump into the same stone twice".

Zelfs een ezel stoot zich in het algemeen geen twee keer aan dezelfde steen.

[mage21]

Would depend on their reasoning for the ban.

Right, a slow edit was added.

[Wyrt]

Right, a slow edit was added.

Your edit doesn't make sense. It'd be more like if Christian terrorists were coming out of Mexico and Ecuador so they banned America.

[mage21]

Your edit doesn't make sense. It'd be more like if Christian terrorists were coming out of Mexico and Ecuador so they banned America.

What if America had been identified as terrorist-rich by a previous, opposing party administration?

[Breccia]

I know you wish it was lying, but random insults do not lend credence to your case.

I said:

The decision from the second attempt uses one of the same things cited in the first case. The WH gave up on that first case, so that decision, that precedent, remains legally valid.

Maybe another court will interpret it differently, but you will not be able to say this current ruling is "not what the law dictates". The first ban was blocked for a few reasons -- over 20 pages worth -- and this was one of them. There is precedent in this specific context. Nobody's getting fired for this.

You directly replied with this:

So then people who act on personal opinions rather than the actual scope of the rules or the law are given a free pass.

Good to know. Thanks for pointing that out. Now we know why Endus has a free pass to ban at leisure. Laws are only for the plebs.

I never "pointed that out". I never said that, and I in fact said the opposite. I said nothing about personal opinion. I in fact pointed out things involving the law, context, and precedent. And with the WH giving up on the first Muslim Ban, in which that decision was handed down, and with the court of appeals also refusing to hear them anyhow, that precedent is binding. And not personal opinion.

You claimed I said it was personal opinion. You lied. Me calling you a liar, when you lie, is not a random insult. It is you lying, and me pointing it out.

- - - Updated - - -

Are candidates allowed to revise their positions?

Sure.

But now the job is to find proof that Trump reversed his calls for a Muslim Ban, which he called for multiple times to thundering applause, and made his change of opinion as clearly and as publicly as his previous stated opinion, on the subject of banning people who happen to be Muslims into the USA.

I do not believe such evidence exists. You're welcome to look, of course, but if you find it get it to WH counsel quick. It sounds like they're going to need it.

[mage21]

Your edit doesn't make sense. It'd be more like if Christian terrorists were coming out of Mexico and Ecuador so they banned America.

And by the way, I've only ever thought this EO had some merit, but not much. I'm more interested in the characterizations of the ban and the court rulings that are interpreting motive as a main deciding factor.

[Draco-Onis]

When you look at the executive order, it's really a fulfillment of his revised position (new screening process). That's the enduring aspect. Viewed as a Muslim ban it fails pretty badly considering it's for a few months, which is fine since Trump's position evolved away from "Muslim ban" to "extreme vetting".

Except he hasn't the reason this ban got blcked is because they have additional videos of Stephen Miller calling it a complete Muslim ban and saying the president's authority cannot be questioned.

[Matchles]

My apologies. It would seem my question was ambiguous.

You claim people were harmed by the executive order. Please provide an example of who and when.

All that I am gleaming from your links is that people were inconvenienced by the executive order (some by choice).

Harm doesn't mean only physical harm. It means any injury loss or damage to something tangible or intangible. It isn't difficult to find many instances of harm from the first ban. Damage to their rights for being held for hours without explanation or legal council. Monetary loss from paying for airline tickets only to be shipped back against your will or being coerced into signing away your legal status in the country. Damage to reputation, etc. etc. etc.

[mage21]

I said:



You directly replied with this:



I never "pointed that out". I never said that, and I in fact said the opposite. I said nothing about personal opinion. I in fact pointed out things involving the law, context, and precedent. And with the WH giving up on the first Muslim Ban, in which that decision was handed down, and with the court of appeals also refusing to hear them anyhow, that precedent is binding. And not personal opinion.

You claimed I said it was personal opinion. You lied. Me calling you a liar, when you lie, is not a random insult. It is you lying, and me pointing it out.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure.

But now the job is to find proof that Trump reversed his calls for a Muslim Ban, which he called for multiple times to thundering applause, and made his change of opinion as clearly and as publicly as his previous stated opinion, on the subject of banning people who happen to be Muslims into the USA.

I do not believe such evidence exists. You're welcome to look, of course, but if you find it get it to WH counsel quick. It sounds like they're going to need it.

Im not claiming reversal. He did shift his position:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...oops-on-ground
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/natio...387189691.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politi...mp-muslim-ban/

He went from a sweeping Muslim ban to, "people from certain territories would face extreme vetting."

- - - Updated - - -

Except he hasn't the reason this ban got blcked is because they have additional videos of Stephen Miller calling it a complete Muslim ban and saying the president's authority cannot be questioned.

That's not what Stephen Miller said.

[Breccia]

Im not claiming reversal. He did shift his position:

He went from a sweeping Muslim ban to, "people from certain territories would face extreme vetting."

The fact that it's not a reversal is the problem. Trump would need to prove that his travel ban, that happens to target Muslim countries, that happens to give priority to non-Muslims, is not by his motivation a Muslim Ban. Softening his original rhetoric to something less extreme is not sufficient to prove a different motive. Until contradicted, which your links do not do, his original motivation stands, and is legally admissible. Which is was. And that's why he lost.

[mage21]

The fact that it's not a reversal is the problem. Trump would need to prove that his travel ban, that happens to target Muslim countries, that happens to give priority to non-Muslims, is not by his motivation a Muslim Ban. Softening his original rhetoric to something less extreme is not sufficient to prove a different motive. Until contradicted, which your links do not do, his original motivation stands, and is legally admissible. Which is was. And that's why he lost.

Even though I really only take issue with the ridiculous lengths the courts went to, and the ridiculous arguments about assumed, outside-the-text motives, I still feel soiled by these discussions. I'm forced to play devil's advocate a lot to make a good point.

[Felya]

I think you're misconstruing a lot of things and overreaching harder than Rachel Maddow.

Yeah, the fact that you cannot answer a simple question like 'is Iraq on Trump's current ban', after I asked 4 times, shows exactly wat is happening.

[PosPosPos]

I actually used to mod here believe it or not, and I have great respect for the MMO-Champion team. I greatly regret airing accusations of bias, because I can tell you first hand that mods who you'd think were the most biased would be the fairest ones in the room when appeals were on the table.

And besides that, it's against forum rules to discuss moderator actions.

The fact you don't have any specific examples and refuse to even PM said list of offending thread titles just shows you are deflecting away your made up stories.

[mage21]

The fact you don't have any specific examples and refuse to even PM said list of offending thread titles just shows you are deflecting away your made up stories.

Alright, I'll shoot you a PM.

[Chupacabra88]

meh.. Islam is a plague. Keep them out.


[Infracted]

[Gamevizier]

The ban was not really needed. this is Trump's attempt to please the white-supremecist groups and to test the waters. The countries listed in the ban already face extreme vetting by US agencies and of all the people that go to US embassies, only a small percentage of them acquire visas after a few months of background checks. there are no solid and convincing reasons for the ban and hence why it's not flying. If the ban faced no stiff opposition it would've enabled his adminsitration to add and remove countries to the list as they pleased, effectively allowing him to put pressure on other muslim countries.

[Astalnar]

Good for them, now point to me, where they are in our country. Still doesn't prove your point that another religion was banned, ever.

What is this supposed to prove? Just because it doesn't ban all of the Muslim countries, does not mean this isn't in all purposes a "Muslim Ban". Which again, there were provisions in the first one that allowed "minority religions" in, which meant Christianity in these countries, but not Muslims. So, yes, its purpose is to ban Muslims.

God help me... I showed you there is a precedent already established, and already written in the law on what grounds there could be a muslim ban. I showed how this was first used to thwart mormons. Now if you refuse to accept reality, that is on you, I wash my hands of this.

Maybe I can write this up to cultural differences. Maybe where you come from there is no such thing as rule of law, and only thing that matters is how the one in power uses and abuses it. Where I come from, it's different. We have division of power, and we have judiciary that follows the laws, not make them. Checks and balances and all that. Because to me, it looks like American judiciary system is runing wild way beyond their intended place in power. American judges seem more like they want to make laws that suit their views than follow already established ones. Now some of that might be chalked up as peculiarities of american common law. But the rest is downright travesty.

When we come down to it, the judges are interfering with the foreign policy over which they have absolutely no jurisdiction.

Yep and the picture still proves it's a muslim ban, whether or not all muslim countries are included makes no difference, because all the countries that are included are Muslim. If all countries that are muslim would be included, it would be an all muslim ban, and that term isn't used by democrats or judges (or sane people).

Not to mention the most dangerous countries that are known for terrorism aren't even on the list (Saudi Arabia, Palestina, Tunisia, etc). Then again we all know why Saudi Arabia isn't on the list, because Trump actually has foreign investments there and probably enough debt to get bribed over it too.

Blame Obama then. It's on the legislation that he put through the congress that Trump is basing his actions off. Look up Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015” and the subsequent expansion in 2016. All that before Trump ever got into office.

And just remind me, for how long did Obama ban the Iraqis from entering the USA? And nobody bats an eye...

[Orbitus]

God help me... I showed you there is a precedent already established, and already written in the law on what grounds there could be a muslim ban. I showed how this was first used to thwart mormons. Now if you refuse to accept reality, that is on you, I wash my hands of this.

Maybe I can write this up to cultural differences. Maybe where you come from there is no such thing as rule of law, and only thing that matters is how the one in power uses and abuses it. Where I come from, it's different. We have division of power, and we have judiciary that follows the laws, not make them. Checks and balances and all that. Because to me, it looks like American judiciary system is runing wild way beyond their intended place in power. American judges seem more like they want to make laws that suit their views than follow already established ones. Now some of that might be chalked up as peculiarities of american common law. But the rest is downright travesty.

When we come down to it, the judges are interfering with the foreign policy over which they have absolutely no jurisdiction.



Blame Obama then. It's on the legislation that he put through the congress that Trump is basing his actions off. Look up Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015” and the subsequent expansion in 2016. All that before Trump ever got into office.

And just remind me, for how long did Obama ban the Iraqis from entering the USA? And nobody bats an eye...

Again, no you didn't. You didn't show precedent, you showed how one part of a religion was banned because polygamy can be bad for the entire relationship between man and his multiple wives. But with Trump's Muslim ban, he wasn't banning anything of the religion, he is banning the whole religion from these certain countries, which is against the first amendment.

And Obama DIDN'T ban Iraqis from the US, he slowed the program down, but he didn't stop it.

[Templar 331]

Blame Obama then. It's on the legislation that he put through the congress that Trump is basing his actions off. Look up Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015” and the subsequent expansion in 2016. All that before Trump ever got into office.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...-bill/158/text

Not seeing Obama's name as a sponsor.......

And just remind me, for how long did Obama ban the Iraqis from entering the USA? And nobody bats an eye...

He didn't "ban" Iraqis from entering, he reduced the number of them coming in. There were still Iraqis entering after that incident that caused them to reevaluate the vetting process.

[Orange Joe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ed1_story.html



Not looking good. Better try and rewrite it again.