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.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra
500,000 deaths in Syria so far because of terrorists.
And we don't want to let in the few remaining fleeing?
Kinda long way to go, ya think?
It is. Mostly European countries and ME countries have taken them in. I think Turkey took the most I think. Saudi Arabia took a good amount. Lots of other countries. You don't want any refugees even travelling here. We;ll, your wish, for the second time, today, was DENIED.
My best friend is Syrian.
His dad, rip, was a syrian christian. Funny bastard. Just rail on Kissinger and Nixon. lol.
He wouldn't want them here either.
Where does your Syrian best friend live?
RI.
Rhode Island. Nice for him. Should we keep him or is he too dangerous?
Maybe BurgerBuddy;s best friend needs extreme vetting?
He's a citizen and very acclimated. lol.
He's a Deacon and is sad what Syria has turned into, same as me.
His daughter was just deployed to Iraq last week.
And I didn't say his dad was a refugee.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra
A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.
Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.
You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.
Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.
No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?
I read it myself. Bleep you.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra
A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.
Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.
You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.
Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.
No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?
I read it myself. Bleep you.
Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra
A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.
Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.
You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.
Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.
No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?
I read it myself. Bleep you.
Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.
Yeah yeah and it time for you to get back in the kitchen.
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra
Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.
Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?
You are 100% correct.
The first EO was only partly restrained by the courts.
The pertinent parts are in effect 100%.
But we are not supposed to talk about that !!!
Now everybody will be screaming louder
here's the "old" EO with the struck out parts
Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra
Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.
Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?
No, both were blocked. It starts over when they are blocked.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: reldra
A federal judge reviews a motion in regard to an EO or law and then decides if it is constitutional and legal or not. They can say it is or they can block it.
Except that's not what happened. It seems the judge blocked it out of personal feelings and opinions of it, not actual legality of it.
You don't know that. For some reason some want to keep saying it. As if to produce buzzwords like activist judge or political decision. But you do not know this.
Actually the judge said it in his 43 page decision.
No, he didn't. Did you miss the last 10 pages of this and come back?
I read it myself. Bleep you.
Yuppa, it is past your bedtime.
Yeah yeah and it time for you to get back in the kitchen.
LOL touche!
originally posted by: D8Tee
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra
Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.
Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?
You are 100% correct.
The first EO was only partly restrained by the courts.
The pertinent parts are in effect 100%.
But we are not supposed to talk about that !!!
Now everybody will be screaming louder
here's the "old" EO with the struck out parts
The old EO is dead now.
Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.
www.whitehouse.gov...
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: reldra
Thank-you for clarifying the difference between Obama and Trump when it comes to these travel restrictions.
Soon, 90 days will have elapsed since President Trump's first travel ban was implemented. Since it was only supposed to be in effect for 90 days, in order to give the Administration time to implement tighter controls. I would say that those "controls" (or whatever they're really called), should be 60-70% on their way to being finalized at this point. Right?
No, both were blocked. It starts over when they are blocked.
Wasn't the first travel restriction set for 90 days in order to give the administration time to implement some type of new default immigration screening system? If so, that system can continue to be put together, regardless of what happens with the Travel Ban(s).
It was, probably to make a worse one, knowing Trump. One would think those plans stopped when the first was blocked.
What do you think the plan is? that is a little creepy. I'll bite.
originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
This judge was appointed by Obama, this is a purely political decision. This man should be held accountable if anyone from these countries comes in and commit crimes.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: D8Tee
They had time to restructure the vetting just the same.
The State Dept was doing it anyway.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
This judge was appointed by Obama, this is a purely political decision. This man should be held accountable if anyone from these countries comes in and commit crimes.
Do you know this man personally? You assume every judge appointed by Obama will only make political decisions on rulings? That is a pretty broad stroke.
I'm just glad Trump can't just fire him.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TinySickTears
President Trump cites powers granted to him by Congress under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as allowing the President to place temporary restrictions on immigration based on country of origin.
And the judicial branch comes in with a check.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Wardaddy454
Hey cant Trump fire all obama judges if he can get the senate to approve it?
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: carewemust
well trump could use the national guard for a maximum of 90 days and use them to turn people around. See the way you do it is do not let them deboard the aircraft and go through customs. until they touch the ground they are not arrived yet.
originally posted by: Wardaddy454
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TinySickTears
President Trump cites powers granted to him by Congress under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as allowing the President to place temporary restrictions on immigration based on country of origin.
And the judicial branch comes in with a check.
Yes. Now do you see the issue with activist judges? Sigh probably not.