17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump 3:00 PM 2/7 Oral arguments to the 9th circuit

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your posts have devolved into something odd.

Like someone aspiring to the low standard of partisan trolling, and still failing to traverse that low bar.

Trump has managed to prove himself the worst President in our history and he is only 3 weeks in.

This Ban fails every test of reason, rationality and decency and as dozens of experts on both sides of the aisle have pointed out ...it makes us less safe.

People have begun to publicly question Trumps mental health and for good reason.

a reply to: Indigo5

No, my posts are an attempt to understand.

Why do you want terrorists to be able to enter the United States?

Who do you think has legal authority over immigration?

Why do you want to overturn a free election?

What exactly could Trump do to satisfy you?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

No, my posts are an attempt to understand.

Why do you want terrorists to be able to enter the United States?

Why do you want Muslim children to die?

Right? It's either I want to admit terrorists or you want to watch children seeking refuge to die.

Stop saying ridiculously stupid #. It makes me embarrassed for you.

Are you unaware that we actually vet immigrants right now? Pretty #ing comprehensive vetting system too...and Trump knows that already..which makes his EO a lot of things, but none of them honest or helpful.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96

That is called animus and valid in court

Nothing a private citizen said would be valid.

The only thing that matters is the language contained in an executive order.

Trump as Potus said christians would be given preference...Giuliani said the aim was to make a Muslim ban legally defensible..and yes candidate trumps words are admissible as well.

Nothing guiliani said is important either. As far as Christians being given preference that was an Obama policy as of yet Trump has no made a final decision and treating them the same.

a reply to: Indigo5

I don't want any children to die. Including mine. Opening the borders wide open will allow the people killing children over there to kill children over here, including those presently over there.

Exactly what procedures are used in the present vetting procedure? Let's talk in specifics: what databases are accessed, how does the search work, what red flags does it look for, etc? What percentage of immigrants from these 7 countries have been caught preparing for a potential act of violence?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

No, my posts are an attempt to understand.

Why do you want terrorists to be able to enter the United States?

Why do you want Muslim children to die?

Right? It's either I want to admit terrorists or you want to watch children seeking refuge to die.

Stop saying ridiculously stupid #. It makes me embarrassed for you.

Are you unaware that we actually vet immigrants right now? Pretty #ing comprehensive vetting system too...and Trump knows that already..which makes his EO a lot of things, but none of them honest or helpful.

Why are you plotting to kill refugees?? I'm going to assume your not and thus us just because you don't know the process. No refugees coming to the United States is in any danger they all ready have there safe spaces no one is trying to hurt them well unless you are but let's assume your not.

Refugees being vetted for the US are in United Nations camp's they get food security and yes even money while they apply.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

No, my posts are an attempt to understand.

Why do you want terrorists to be able to enter the United States?

Why do you want Muslim children to die?

Right? It's either I want to admit terrorists or you want to watch children seeking refuge to die.

Stop saying ridiculously stupid #. It makes me embarrassed for you.

Are you unaware that we actually vet immigrants right now? Pretty #ing comprehensive vetting system too...and Trump knows that already..which makes his EO a lot of things, but none of them honest or helpful.

No refugees coming to the United States is in any danger they all ready have there safe spaces no one is trying to hurt them well unless you are but let's assume your not.

????
Kids are starving to death and dying in Sudan on a regular basis?

It banned translators and other US allied natives in Iraqi. People who spent years helping the US military at grave risk of reprisals to themselves and their family, under the promise the US government would one day extricate them to safety.

Refugee ban trapped my Iraqi translator: Veteran
Hunted by militias in Iraq, he was about to get his visa and immigrate to America. Now what?
www.usatoday.com...

Hameed is just one of thousands of Iraqis who have worked with the US during its post-9/11 military operations there. In many cases, they were risking their lives to do so and faced reprisal from insurgents who considered them traitors. In exchange for their service, those Iraqis and their counterparts in Afghanistan became eligible for special visas to settle in the United States. But the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, which began in 2007, has long been backlogged. Some applicants have been waiting for more than five years for their visas to be processed. Now, the president's travel ban has created a new obstacle for former Iraqi partners, who remain in danger despite no longer working for the US.

www.pri.org...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't want any children to die. Including mine. Opening the borders wide open will allow the people killing children over there to kill children over here

You seem to be having some cognitive issue?

Are "the borders wide open" right now? And the EO does what again?

Right now the vetting process is already "extreme" thanks to our last President vigilance. It take years to process through screening even for the most qualified.

The EO was simply pandering to the ignorant and bigoted..

Why do you want Muslim kids dead?

...I am just going to ask that question a dozen times so we can speak at the same level in keeping with your repeated idiot question of "why do you want to bring terrorists to the US?"

originally posted by: Indigo5
Right now the vetting process is already "extreme" thanks to our last President vigilance. It take years to process through screening even for the most qualified.

Bull#... Obama tried using executive orders to end run around the law with his immigration bs which is why he lost in court. He prevented people who do vetting from looking at peoples social media. Obama changed the oath of citizenship to exclude a pledge of allegiance and removed the obligation to defend and support the Constitution. He told illegals to vote and that they would not get in trouble. He changed the way deportations are tabulated in order to make it look like he was enforcing immigration law when in reality deportations dropped 40%.

Pull your head out of the sand and try to get past your hatred of trump. Its doing bad things to your mind.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, I am having some cognitive issues, primarily from attempting to make some sense of your posts. And finally, after asking three different times in three different, related threads, you have managed to answer a question with a question that totally ignores reality.

Can you give me a 100% guarantee that no terrorists from these 7 countries will infiltrate Customs?

If they do, why would refugees be any safer here than there?

Simple questions, really. Why can't you answer? I already answered yours, first time.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5
Right now the vetting process is already "extreme" thanks to our last President vigilance. It take years to process through screening even for the most qualified.

Bull#... Obama tried using executive orders to end run around the law with his immigration bs which is why he lost in court. He prevented people who do vetting from looking at peoples social media. Obama changed the oath of citizenship to exclude a pledge of allegiance and removed the obligation to defend and support the Constitution. He told illegals to vote and that they would not get in trouble. He changed the way deportations are tabulated in order to make it look like he was enforcing immigration law when in reality deportations dropped 40%.

When you wrote the word "Bull#..."
Did you mean that everything that followed would be just that?

That was an awesome barf-ramble of fake news!!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, I am having some cognitive issues, primarily from attempting to make some sense of your posts. And finally, after asking three different times in three different, related threads, you have managed to answer a question with a question that totally ignores reality.

Can you give me a 100% guarantee that no terrorists from these 7 countries will infiltrate Customs?

Oh...wow..well then..100% Guarantee you say??

Well seeing as the natives here in the USA are much more likely to conduct terrorist acts than a fully vetted immigrant..

Why don't we round up a million random Americans as that would reduce terrorism much more effectively than banning well screened immigrants.

Or how about this Red, if we are looking to protect children...Why not round up Alabama Gun owners?
Alabama has fifth-highest rate of accidental child shootings in the nation
www.al.com...

How about you compare those stats to how many terrorist attacks Alabama had in the last two years?

Maybe it has something to do with those Alabama gun owners using drugs?
Report: Alabama No. 1 in Country for Prescription Opioid Use
www.insurancejournal.com...

And Alabama has a murder rate higher than Chicago's home state of Illinois!
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I say until you..Red ...can GAURANTEE ME that Alabamans will no longer shoot kids and murder people we should wall off ALabama from the rest of the country!!

Cuz Alabamans are unveted and infinitely more dangerous to Americans than immigrants!

Statistics prove it!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Between 2001 - 2015 there were more than 1.1 Million Visitors, Refugees and Immigrants from Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq and Iran and Yemen...entered the US.

Since 2001...there have been 12 DEADLY terrorist attacks on the US Soil (By Islamic Terrorists...we will leave Dylan Roof and others out of it for your purposes)

How many behind those terrorist attacks are from those 7 countries?
ZERO

There were 3 Potentially deadly terrorist attacks involving people from those countries...though no one died.

2 from Somalia...One from Iran..

That makes 3 out of 1.1 Million Immigrants, Visitors and Refugees from those countries..over 15 years..

Or .0003%..

Refugees are even less likely to commit a terrorist act..

The Chances of an American getting killed by a terrorist act by a refugee?

1 in 3.64 Billion...

www.cnn.com...


So red...
Your odds of getting murdered by a fellow Alabamian is 1 in 15,000
Your odds of getting struck by lightening TWICE?........ 1 in 9,000,000
Your odds of getting killed by refugee terrorism? is 1 in 3,640,000,000

I ask again...when can we round up the insane threat of Alabamians...Men, women, kids and all....for the safety of us all!

a reply to: Indigo5

Not much of an answer still... but I will still address your comments, just to show what a nice guy I am.

Why don't we round up a million random Americans as that would reduce terrorism much more effectively than banning well screened immigrants.

Ah, yes. The truth comes out. I take it from that statement that you believe Syria is safer than the US. So why are we wanting the Syrians here? To put them in danger?

Or how about this Red, if we are looking to protect children...Why not round up Alabama Gun owners?

Sure... go ahead, as long as you do it legally. That means revoking the 2nd Amendment, and the equality clause as well since you mentioned Alabama... oh, and since you said that, any attempt to revoke the 2nd Amendment is motivated by bigotry and needs to be fully adjucated before anything can happen.

I say until you..Red ...can GAURANTEE ME that Alabamans will no longer shoot kids and murder people we should wall off ALabama from the rest of the country!!

Oh, now you're just trying to get my hopes up...

So you want terrorists in the US because you think they are more peaceable than Americans, and you want the Syrian refugees here so they can be subjected to all these US terrorists. Got it. Sounds pretty racist, but I got it.

OK, now that that's all hashed out... how about the second question. Exactly what vetting procedures are used... what databases, what activities are looked for, that sort of thing?

TheRedneck

Another reason why the states have no standing and why Judge Robart / 9th circus are wrong. The claims made by washington state about potential students, employees and professors -

Not one of the 5 have Visas.

The Ninth Circuit’s Stay On Trump’s Immigration Order Is Legal Garbage

This is where you should begin to get angry. After the court found it likely that Trump’s executive order violated constitutional rights of people who have no constitutional rights, it put those make-believe “rights” ahead of the country’s national security, and your right to be safe in your home, workplace, and place of worship. The court put the rights of the following people ahead of your safety:

Two visiting scholars (one without a visa) who wanted to spend time at Washington State University;
Three “prospective employees” of the University of Washington who had no visas; and
Two medicine and science interns without visas.

Yes, the court found that the make-believe “rights” of seven people (only one of which actually had a visa, and none of which were in the country) trump your right to live free and without fear. Their “rights” trump the national security interests of the U.S. government and its 300 million citizens. This is 100 percent wrong.

When presented with the fact that all seven countries Trump’s executive order affected were labeled “countries of concern” by the Obama administration (more than 60 terrorism-related arrests have occurred since 9/11 involving citizens of these countries), the court essentially said it didn’t care. Unless it was presented with something really juicy, like intelligence it has no authority to view, it would give no deference to the government’s argument that national security concerns must be taken into account. It’s a shameful and sad outcome.

click link for entire article op-ed.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

OK, now that that's all hashed out... how about the second question. Exactly what vetting procedures are used... what databases, what activities are looked for, that sort of thing?

TheRedneck

This is a question you are no doubt capable of researching and answering yourself?

Unclear as to why you believe it to be my responsibility to educate you on the issue?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Another reason why the states have no standing ..

Your argument's credibility has been steadily eroded by the current state of affairs.

A Virginia court has now sharply ruled against the EO..

The DOJ has retreated from defending the EO altogether...

And the Trump administration is now brainstorming a second EO that is more resilient to court challenge.

a federal judge across the country dealt another significant blow to the executive order in Virginia late Monday, writing in her opinion: "Maximum power does not mean absolute power."

...

"The defendants have responded with no evidence other than the (executive order)," Brinkema wrote in her decision.

..

At the hearing the judge also said that she was moved by a declaration signed by several former senior US officials, including former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, in support of a brief filed by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota in the Ninth Circuit appeal.

"We view the (executive) order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer," officials wrote.

"It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interest, endangering US troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships."

Brinkema said at last Friday's hearing that the officials' declaration was "clear as a bell."

"This is coming from people with first-hand direct knowledge" of national security issues, Brinkema added -- whereas the government had failed to offer even a "scintilla of evidence" that counters it.

...

Brinkema's written decision on Monday further recounted the public comments made by then-Republican presidential candidate Trump, calling for a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," and more recent statements from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that Trump wanted to find a way to implement the ban "legally."

"Defendants have not denied any of these statements or produced any evidence beyond the text of the (executive order) itself, to support their contention that the (executive order) was primarily motivated by national security concerns," Brinkema explained.

"Defendants have argued that the court may not go beyond the text of the (executive order) in assessing its purpose, or look behind its proffered national security rationale, but the Supreme Court has rejected that position," she added.

"The evidence in this record focuses on the president's statements about a 'Muslim ban' and the link Giuliani established between those statements and the (executive order)," Brinkema wrote. "Based on that evidence, at this preliminary (stage) of the litigation, the Court finds that the Commonwealth has established a likelihood of success on the merits."[//b]

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

OK, now that that's all hashed out... how about the second question. Exactly what vetting procedures are used... what databases, what activities are looked for, that sort of thing?

TheRedneck

This is a question you are no doubt capable of researching and answering yourself?

Unclear as to why you believe it to be my responsibility to educate you on the issue?

I think he wants you to realize that when the UN submits a list of refugees to t her US there is no vetting. See they are run through Amarican databases such as DHS Automated Biometric Identification System. Problem is to be in there you have to have committed a terrorist act against a western country or at a minimum be on an interpol watch list. Without any information provided from the country they are from options become very limited.

They have to have either already attempted to kill people or a known associate of people that have. But this information is severely limiting since most people regardless of political ideals have not attempted to blow themselves up.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

OK, now that that's all hashed out... how about the second question. Exactly what vetting procedures are used... what databases, what activities are looked for, that sort of thing?

TheRedneck

This is a question you are no doubt capable of researching and answering yourself?

Unclear as to why you believe it to be my responsibility to educate you on the issue?

I think he wants you to realize that when the UN submits a list of refugees to t her US there is no vetting.

Nope...You too should do some real research..

a reply to: Indigo5

No, I cannot answer it myself. You can't answer it either. That is classified information available only to select members of the CBP, the President, and a few high-level officials.

In other words, your claims are based in total ignorance, unless you want us to believe you're a department head in Homeland Security.

TheRedneck