How would you feel if the next president rescinded the travel ban

[Taso]

Seeing how some people on this forum are mixed about USA travel ban just check this article out.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/04/29/...igration-laws/
Yes it's from 2010. I'll see if I can find another one more updated.

Found another one.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/thought-us...175338132.html
It's from yahoo my least favorite site but still effective.

[Deleted]

That's not even possible, and even if it was it'd be a waste of good men and women.

[Machismo]

What policies in particular?

His immigration policies, war on drugs, threats to overseas companies, push to increase tariffs and taxes on companies with foreign holdings, or who manufacture overseas... all of the are growing the size and scope of government. There's also his stated intent to increase libel laws, support for stop-and-frisk policing, increase to the military budget, and calls to limit 4th and 6th Amendment freedoms.

[mbg]

His immigration policies, war on drugs, threats to overseas companies, push to increase tariffs and taxes on companies with foreign holdings, or who manufacture overseas... all of the are growing the size and scope of government. There's also his stated intent to increase libel laws, support for stop-and-frisk policing, increase to the military budget, and calls to limit 4th and 6th Amendment freedoms.

His immigration policies are right on the money. War on drugs? I have not heard anything about that. Threats to overseas companies? Can you be more specific? All I know is that he is trying to lower the taxes on companies so that they would all come home. The US has one of the highest tax burdens on the planet. It is one of the major reasons why companies have moved from the country. Well, libel laws are there for a reason. With all the libel that is going around the lamestream media about him, can you blame the guy? I'm not a big fan of having such a big military, but what can you do? We need a strong military, yes, but do we need it to meddle in other country's affairs? No. But again, it will never change. As far as stop and frisk and the 4th amendment, please list a source. The 6th amendment, I have never heard of anyone wanting to violate that one.

[Machismo]

His immigration policies are right on the money. War on drugs? I have not heard anything about that. Threats to overseas companies? Can you be more specific? All I know is that he is trying to lower the taxes on companies so that they would all come home. The US has one of the highest tax burdens on the planet. It is one of the major reasons why companies have moved from the country. Well, libel laws are there for a reason. With all the libel that is going around the lamestream media about him, can you blame the guy? I'm not a big fan of having such a big military, but what can you do? We need a strong military, yes, but do we need it to meddle in other country's affairs? No. But again, it will never change. As far as stop and frisk and the 4th amendment, please list a source. The 6th amendment, I have never heard of anyone wanting to violate that one.

His immigration policies are more restrictive, that means more government. Now you may support it, but it is an example of bigger, more intrusive government. He has called for higher tariffs and taxes from some countries, as well as companies that manufacture overseas. That is a perfect example of bigger government.

His push for increased libel laws speaks for itself, and it means more government. Once again, you may support it, but it doesnt change what it is.

He wants to increase military spending... bigger government. As for his interventionism, he seems to be attacking the same places the last couple Presidents did.

He supports stop-and-frisk policing. That has been ruled to n an invasion of privacy, and is clearly an example of more government. I'm not sure how you don't see it.

[Zython]

No, but it was for the same countries exactly that the first ban Trump tried implementing was for. All Trump has done now is remove a country from the list that Obama had.

So it WASN'T for the exact same countries? Which is it?

[Zeta333]

and instead ordered US and NATO troops into those six nations to restore order and prop up Western friendly governments?

I believe in taking an interventionist approach rather an isolationist approach to fighting terrorism.

outside of forcing secular beliefs in the middle east i dont see the situation improving there ever. Look at iran before the islamic revolution it was an amazing place, as fre place. I think all of the hatred bigotry and violance is fueled and pushed by thier religion there.

[Flatspriest]

So it WASN'T for the exact same countries? Which is it?

The first attempt at a travel ban was for the exact same countries Obama had on his travel ban. The 2nd attempt was where Trump actually removed Iraq from the list.

[Zecora]

The kind who thinks people who had a average age of 25 before dying because they lived as savages suffered by being brought up to the European standard of living.

Ah, so you're one of those who have bought into the "it's the White man's burden to help the poor savages and save them from themselves" bullshit. Well, if you are so ignorant that you don't even bother to look into the lies you are fed, you are quite frankly beyond help. Feel free to keep living your lie, you're probably happier being clueless.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...wer_City_Index

Global Power City top 10: 1. London, 2. New York City, 3. Tokyo, 4. Paris, 5. Singapore, 6. Seoul, 7. Hong Kong, 8. Amsterdam, 9. Berlin, 10. Vienna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...elopment_Index

5 Singapore 0.925

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

Might be? Singapore is better to live in than most other places.

Yeah, that was not what was being discussed though. Of course places colonized is better for the colonists than they were. The question is whether it is better for those who used to live there before the colonization.

[primalmatter]

Ah, so you're one of those who have bought into the "it's the White man's burden to help the poor savages and save them from themselves" bullshit. Well, if you are so ignorant that you don't even bother to look into the lies you are fed, you are quite frankly beyond help. Feel free to keep living your lie, you're probably happier being clueless.

I think we should of kept our castles and walls and simply shot any of them who came close. Sadly we gave them the fruit of knowledge now it is our responsibility. We can't return them to their old culture of rummaging through the plains or forest looking for a rats nest to dig up for supper. They simply refuse to disregard all technology and comforts we gave them.

I am not saying it isn't a messy process but being able to jump through ages of technology in a mere few decades is a amazing gift for the civilization.

[stomination]

and instead ordered US and NATO troops into those six nations to restore order and prop up Western friendly governments?

I believe in taking an interventionist approach rather an isolationist approach to fighting terrorism.

Travel ban was meant only for a few months. SO it will be hard for the next president to get rid of something that expired anyways.

[Mormolyce]

Supreme Court just upheld the lower court decision on extended family.

Supreme Court says grandparents, relatives can enter US despite travel ban

Washington (CNN)In a loss for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court Wednesday left intact a lower court opinion that temporarily exempts grandparents and other relatives from President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The justices did give Trump a partial win on another issue by lifting an order exempting a category of refugees from the travel ban.
The court said the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals should review the issue.
Trump's order affects people from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.
Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said Wednesday they would have allowed the travel ban to remain in effect as it applies to grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law.
Wednesday's order is a follow-up to the court's ruling in June that the travel ban could not go into effect for those people with a "bona fide connection" to a person or entity in the United States. The Trump administration subsequently issued guidelines interpreting the ruling to cover some relatives -- but not grandparents, uncles, aunts and others.
Challengers immediately went back to court and argued that the Trump administration had interpreted the court's ruling too narrowly. Federal district judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii agreed and relaxed the travel ban as it applies to grandparents and others, and the administration asked the Supreme Court to put that decision on hold.
The Supreme Court will hear the overall challenge to the travel ban later this year.
"In large part this is a loss for the Trump administration because it suggests that a majority of the court disagrees with the guidance the government issued after the Supreme Court's initial June 26 order," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.
"It also suggests at a more basic level that the justices are going to leave these issues to the lower courts at least until the full case returns to the court next fall," he said.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall argued in court papers that the district court's opinion emptied the Supreme Court's original decision of meaning because it encompassed "not just 'close' family members, but virtually all family members."
Neal Katyal -- the lead lawyer for Hawaii, which challenged the ban, said the limits were unfair.
"Compelling a grandparent to be apart from his grandchild -- especially one seeking refuge from violence or persecution -- inflicts hardship of unbearable severity," he wrote.
Katyal also urged the justices to leave in place the lower court opinion as it applies to refugees with assurance of assistance from volunteer resettlement agencies.
This story is breaking and will be updated.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/19/po...nts/index.html

[Zeek Daniels]

The travel ban is only temporary in most cases. Why does this thread even exist. It was only supposed to last 120 days in the worst cases but most were 90 day bans and there were maybe 1 or 2 indefinite bans. The reason for the travel ban was so the Trump administration could review the process of visas for these hostile countries in terms of their governments not being cooperative or the fact that their governments support terrorist groups. That process should have already determined an answer by now and President Trump should have given updates on how to proceed further by saying which countries will be permanently banned if they dont submit to new regulations and which are unbanned.

You likely wont see anything until after the supreme court hears the cases though.