It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

page: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: joshysway
Thank you Hawaii!


Thank you for what? Really.

What are you thankful for regarding this decision?

I am. I answered that early post with a flag of hawaii and a marching band performing 'Celebration'.

Thankful a judge sees this for what it is.


Here it is carewemust:

But Obama didn't do the same things with the list.


The Obama-signed law (2015) contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States;


The list did not name the countries as the most dangerous, but made travel from them to here more difficult.

This is wholly different from Trump's failed plans.


since 9/11, no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries, though there have been at least three non-deadly cases in which the perpetrator was connected to Iran or Somalia.


You can show us the actual EO quotes ?





posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It doesn't matter what his intent was, what words he used, or how he went about explaining it, most especially when nothing of the sort happened. The EO is legal, constitutional, prudent, and dare I say compassionate.


The EO is none of those things. You don't even live here and use an emotional word like compassionate about it. That is just a little strange.


So. You don't live in Somalia.

Yes I find giving leniency to persecuted minorities compassionate.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.



Again!!! SO WHAT?! lol.

He/potus has the power to ban anyone he wants.

WTF is so hard to understand?






posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Pardon me while I excuse myself permanently from this liberal circle jerk

*The ban is unconstitutional per the judge because of trumps words

*The judge used trumps words selectively

*but the judge said intent

*The judge didn't use the words said in context, but rather selectively

*but the constitution

*the judge didn't decide based on constitutionality, rather personal feelings

*nuh uh, here look

*thats not what trump said

*its the intent though

*trumps intent was all, this isnt all

*but he said

*he said all

*but the judge said

*the judge was wrong




peace out!



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



You are wrong. His base has a thing against Muslims. He knew he couldn't block every Muslim majority country due to his business holdings. So, someone said...Obama made it difficult for travel from a list of countries...you could do that. If anyone complains..just say, "Obama did it too". Which he did not. Also keep in mind, Trump said many times that he would block Muslims from this country completely. Got him some votes from some idiots.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Well, if the left want it so anyone can get into the country, let it be. Take all restrictions off of immigration, anyone can get into the USA no matter what they are like. We will have every criminal in the world coming here. Including Russians

Legally you can't discriminate I guess. Criminals used to be a minority.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

never knew you were a constitutional lawyer


Don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to understand it.

Read it. Put your political biases aside and revel in the fact that you are protected from government tyranny based on religion.

Once you respect what freedoms you have, perhaps you will be kind enough to extend it to others.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, if the left want it so anyone can get into the country, let it be. Take all restrictions off of immigration, anyone can get into the USA no matter what they are like. We will have every criminal in the world coming here. Including Russians

Legally you can't discriminate I guess. Criminals used to be a minority.


When did Liberals ever say that?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about Pakistan?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy



1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.


The 1st amendment covers any action the US government undertakes.

The US government cannot take any action that discriminates against any particular religion, whether it's US citizens or foreign nationals.



Sky is blue, btw.

Yeah, IN the USA only.

Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.

Because that's what they are pushing besides the Yemen to Waikiki tours the judge's brother in law runs as a basis for the TRO.








The President can't make a law that would effect whole groups that way, even in the near future. That would mean people travelling in and out of here on the basis of religion.

I know you don't live here.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



You are wrong. His base has a thing against Muslims. He knew he couldn't block every Muslim majority country due to his business holdings. So, someone said...Obama made it difficult for travel from a list of countries...you could do that. If anyone complains..just say, "Obama did it too". Which he did not. Also keep in mind, Trump said many times that he would block Muslims from this country completely. Got him some votes from some idiots.



The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy



1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.


The 1st amendment covers any action the US government undertakes.

The US government cannot take any action that discriminates against any particular religion, whether it's US citizens or foreign nationals.



Sky is blue, btw.

Yeah, IN the USA only.

Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.

Because that's what they are pushing besides the Yemen to Waikiki tours the judge's brother in law runs as a basis for the TRO.








The President can't make a law that would effect whole groups that way, even in the near future. That would mean people travelling in and out of here on the basis of religion.

I know you don't live here.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.



No, they can't. ISIS is a known terrorist organization. They are already on the list of people to not allow entry.

Impossible task?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



You are wrong. His base has a thing against Muslims. He knew he couldn't block every Muslim majority country due to his business holdings. So, someone said...Obama made it difficult for travel from a list of countries...you could do that. If anyone complains..just say, "Obama did it too". Which he did not. Also keep in mind, Trump said many times that he would block Muslims from this country completely. Got him some votes from some idiots.



The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



It targets Muslims.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.



Again!!! SO WHAT?! lol.

He/potus has the power to ban anyone he wants.

WTF is so hard to understand?





No, he cannot ban people based on religion and that is why the courts have stopped it.

It is unconstitutional.

The constitution happens to be the document that limits the government in what it can do, as to stop people from being dictators.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about Pakistan?


Ask that question to Trump.

Use Twitter.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The Trump EO is not banning anybody based on religion.

The "religion" thing is just coincidence.

War and Terrorism are happening in those countries.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Does total and complete not equate to all?


It doesn't matter if it's all or just one.

The government cannot take action against anyone based on their religion and Trump made it very clear that was his intent.


But not in any EO.

Now the courts are into the "what if" and "he said she said" phase of failure.



There's no "what if" or " he said she said".

Trump said he wanted to target Muslims and he did so by targeting Muslim-majority countries.


The EO targets Terrorists, not Muslims.



Then why isn't Columbia on the list? How about Pakistan?


Ask that question to Trump.

Use Twitter.



LOL....good one. That is apparently the only way to know, from day to day what trump is thinking. I rarely go on twitter and I do not follow him. I never thought there would come a day where I would have to use twitter to know what the President was thinking.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy



Sky is blue, btw. Yeah, IN the USA only.


Not sure what that means.



Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.


Is the Establishment clause not a limit on the actions the government can take in regards to religion?


The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman James Madison in 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs of all kinds. The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
en.wikipedia.org...



Forget the first part, it went over your head.

No, it does not violate the Establishment Clause or we couldn't have let so many jews in during WW2.








posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The way I figure it, why not allow the travel ban for 3 months?
There's nothing that would shake up the ISIS sympathizers more than being banned from the USA.
I bet that's when they would order an attack from whom ever they may have on US soil right now.
If the travel ban is in place and something happens - then boom, its proven that it's too little to late.... providing the attack would incite more attacks. Then everyone can point the finger at Trump for kicking the hornets nest.
But If nothing happens in the US during that 3 month period, then perhaps Mr T, is onto something or at the very least has a follow up plan when those 3 months are up as to how to approach the situation now.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy



1st amendment doesn't cover foreign nationals in their own country.


The 1st amendment covers any action the US government undertakes.

The US government cannot take any action that discriminates against any particular religion, whether it's US citizens or foreign nationals.



Sky is blue, btw.

Yeah, IN the USA only.

Prove where it covers foreign nationals in their own countries.

Because that's what they are pushing besides the Yemen to Waikiki tours the judge's brother in law runs as a basis for the TRO.








The President can't make a law that would effect whole groups that way, even in the near future. That would mean people travelling in and out of here on the basis of religion.

I know you don't live here.



So ISIS en masse can get visa's?

Show me where he doesn't have that power.

Never mind. You can't, sorry to ask such an impossible task from you.



No, they can't. ISIS is a known terrorist organization. They are already on the list of people to not allow entry.

Impossible task?


How are ISIS citizens identified ?




new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join