Federal appeals court maintains suspension of Trump’s immigration order

a reply to: muse7

If President Trump will not drop this issue, he should just change some of the details of the Citizen Protection ban, and reissue it. Use the legalese to his advantage.

They're drawing it out as long as they possibly can. The longer they draw it out the more bickering and division that will happen between the supporters and opponents of said bill.

This bread and circus is becoming so transparent that I can't believe people are still buying into it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If we have a terror attack, it will be on the heads of that liberal court.

In the meantime, they need to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and get this thing settled.

No. It's the chance we take living in a free society.

Remember, those that give up liberty for freedom deserve neither and will lose both.

Where is an American citizen giving up liberty from blocking refugees from 5 foreign countries?

And you got the quote wrong its liberty for security

a reply to: introvert

no
you called trump a fascist based on "round up" that are NON EXISTANT

1 person was deported

1

He received the news really well. He is having dinner with Tillerson and his donor Adelson after his twitter response.

a reply to: queenofswords

I'm wondering if the mission in Yemen, which Spicer called an intelligence-gathering mission, may have been the impetus to the travel ban. He said that lots of intelligence and other information was obtained from the computers and other data that was confiscated.

You may want to review the timeline.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed whether undocumented immigrants have
all the constitutional protections that U.S. citizens enjoy; however, in 1945
the high court did hold that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens
residing in this country” (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148).


However, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have more recently stated
that these protections may be limited. In 1990, the Supreme Court said cases
establishing constitutional protections extended to aliens “are constitutional
decisions of this Court expressly according differing protection to aliens than
to citizens, based on our conclusion that the particular provisions in question
were not intended to extend to aliens in the same degree as to citizens” (United
States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259).

www.firstamendmentcenter.org...



I Stand Corrected , they do Have Limited Rights .

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If we have a terror attack, it will be on the heads of that liberal court.

In the meantime, they need to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and get this thing settled.

NO.

It will be on the heads of the terrorists.

Think about that.

No court that upholds the Constitution should ever be called "responsible" for the acts of madmen.

To think otherwise is a slippery slope towards authoritarianism. I don't want to live in Russia.

It's almost a forgone conclusion Trump will use the nuke option to get the SCOTUS in asap.IMHO.

a reply to: Grambler

I also am against mass round ups, I must have mis read. But the illegals that are found to have committed felonies, they should be deported when found.

I think we can agree, to a certain extent.

Thats why politicization of the court was such a terrible idea. And lets not mince words, the left is primarily responsible for this. Even with Roe, this should have been a matter of congress, the court had no business in deciding this.

The court was compelled to hear that case because of the lawsuits that made it's way through our court system, all the way to their front door. They did what they were designed to do.

So if you live by the court, you die by it. And I will not feel bad when conservatives courts make rulings that many on the left with riot about.

I thought politicization of the court was a bad idea. Now you are saying it's ok as long as the cards are in your favor?

Make up your mind.

If they really wanted to have a legitimate ban of dangerous countries, they would have on the top of the list Saudi Arabia, Pakistan two Wahhabi countries, which those countries are predominately and where most of the terrorist is from geographically, and the fact is that ALL terrorism is from Wahhabis—100 percent.

This ban was 100 percent political, which Trump initiated because these are the seven countries the US is trying to destabilize.

Trump may be playing some game with the security apparatus here.

They advised him that these countries were under a COVERT OPERATION to destabilize, Trump interpreted that as an excuse for him to initiate a ban on those countries.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

"Folks, we can't do anything to keep ourselves safe from terrorists, because that will inspire the terrorists!"

Where was Mateen born?

But please point out where I said we can't do anything to keep ourselves safe from terrorists.

Not just you, but others that say things like this EO helps the terrorist.

Fine, limit it to this EO. How does it help terrorists recruit? Who was on the fence, and was like "You know, I didn't feel like joining Isis when Obama bombed Yemen, or Libya, but now that Trump halted immigration for 120 days, I am all in"

And why is the EO more of a recruitment tool than the democrats saying how evil it is, and how anti muslim it is?

Do you think the Democrats should have to remain silent in their objections, because it helps Isis recruit?

originally posted by: muse7
Trump yelling on twitter

"YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF ME!!!"

Just like a true super villain

LOL - come on, don't make me post Elizabeth Warrens 'I'll be back' twitter rant.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
The guy is a idiot voted in by idiots.

I don't think the people who voted him in were idiots. I think they needed a change, and I don't think they chose the right path, but that's not my call. And while I'm busy thinking, I think you guys are gonna want to mend some fences before # starts to get real because you're gonna need each other.

Then why not Sanders...maybe he was too intelligent for the Trump voters to get their head around.?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

"Folks, we can't do anything to keep ourselves safe from terrorists, because that will inspire the terrorists!"

Where was Mateen born?

But please point out where I said we can't do anything to keep ourselves safe from terrorists.

Do you not understand the multi-level aspect we are dealing with? Geeez! We see what you're doing.

Home-grown second generation immigrant radicals; citizens that self-radicalize; lack of or faulty vetting processes either by our own State department or by countries such as those on the list that have little to no infrastructure for gathering data on travelers; visa problems that let people like Tashfeen Malik into our country; etc. etc. etc.

a reply to: Willtell

They advised him that these countries were under a COVERT OPERATION to destabilize, Trump interpreted that as an excuse for him to initiate a ban on those countries.

Nah. Bannon knew that Obama had specified "the 7" and that could be used as a deflection. Even though there was no similarity with the scope of the EO.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RazorV66

If you are in the country illegally, pack your shi*, because you will be leaving.

What, no due process?

Just mass round-ups?

That is the problem, there are so many millions of them here, it would have to be a mass round-up.
Exactly what due process do you think they should be afforded? How much more taxpayer money do you want spent on this problem?
It's against the LAW.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



I thought politicization of the court was a bad idea. Now you are saying it's ok as long as the cards are in your favor?

Make up your mind.

I do think it is bad. I think the conservative courts will roll back a lot of activist court rulings, like perhaps Roe V Wade. They should have went through congress and made abortion law. So if the activism is overturned by non political judges, that will be good, and I will not feel bad for the people that relied on the courts making law.

Now if a conservative court makes law, I would object to that too.

a reply to: queenofswords

Do you not understand the multi-level aspect we are dealing with?

Yes, I do.

Do you understand that Trump's EO would have had no effect on Malik?

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If we have a terror attack, it will be on the heads of that liberal court.

In the meantime, they need to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and get this thing settled.

No. It's the chance we take living in a free society.

Remember, those that give up liberty for freedom deserve neither and will lose both.

Where is an American citizen giving up liberty from blocking refugees from 5 foreign countries?

Refugees have not been part of my argument whatsoever. My issue lies with the visa aspect, and that can affect the lives and liberties of Americans.