webfact

Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban before it can go into effect

141 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, jesimps said:

POTUS is becoming redundant. May as well hand all the decision making to the lefty judges. Of course unlike the president, they won't bear any of the responsibility when things go wrong.

The lunatics seem to be running the asylum in the US. Dunno why they bothered with the vote. Bit like what GM and the Lords are doing in the UK.

You jest of course , the idea of Trump ever accepting responsibility would be highly amusing if it were not so pathetic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Except for the fact that by law this is a specified duty of the executive branch. Using your logic, decisions to use military force by the President and congress could be stopped by the court action in a single state because one of its citizens would be inconvenienced or have difficulty getting a Visa for a family member. That is not how the separation of powers between branches of the US government is supposed to work. This will be overturned on appeal.

More chance of getting a blowjob from the pope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

 

Considering that Trump doesn't give a damn about either set of 'peasants' , your point is moot.

We don't know that yet, I am speaking for the ones who do want to better themselves, there are those who never want to get off the dole and are very happy living at the lower end of living standards, those I don't care about either. My point is why I don't think immigration should be widely allowed when we don't have good jobs for our own citizens who want to move up a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

You do realise that the US has supported and armed terrorists across the world. It was the arming of the Mujhardeen ( against the Russians) that gave such a boost to Islamic fundamentalism. 

I am pragmatic , politics is a dirty game , very few governments are innocent but some are far more hypocritical than others.

There are plenty of US citizens who have commited terrorist attacks ( in Central and South America , Asia , Africa ) or have aided and funded terrorism. By your logic Washington should be nuked , correct ?

I agree that the US has done some bad stuff, and I think we should just get out of world problems until or unless they come to us. Its kind of like getting in the middle of a domestic quarrel, no good can come of it.  This is about immigration, and I don't think we need any immigrants at this time, sorry check back with us later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Grubster said:

We don't know that yet, I am speaking for the ones who do want to better themselves, there are those who never want to get off the dole and are very happy living at the lower end of living standards, those I don't care about either. My point is why I don't think immigration should be widely allowed when we don't have good jobs for our own citizens who want to move up a little.

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't add up , I think you have just swallowed the hype without thinking it through. How many immigrants walk into high paid jobs that are desirable to US citizens ?  The answer is very few , and those that do are highly qualified , thats why they got the job !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I agree that the US has done some bad stuff, and I think we should just get out of world problems until or unless they come to us. Its kind of like getting in the middle of a domestic quarrel, no good can come of it.  This is about immigration, and I don't think we need any immigrants at this time, sorry check back with us later.

Fair enough but my beef is with the nonsense you wrote about nuking Afghanistan or any other country that abets terrorism. Do you now accept that you were being ridiculous , given that you have recognised that the US( along with half the rest of the world ) also qualifies for your big bang ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

You do realise that the US has supported and armed terrorists across the world. It was the arming of the Mujhardeen ( against the Russians) that gave such a boost to Islamic fundamentalism. 

I am pragmatic , politics is a dirty game , very few governments are innocent but some are far more hypocritical than others.

There are plenty of US citizens who have commited terrorist attacks ( in Central and South America , Asia , Africa ) or have aided and funded terrorism. By your logic Washington should be nuked , correct ?

On the other hand, which side of the border would you want to live in, North or South Korea? or the Berlin Wall in the 50's into the 80's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't add up , I think you have just swallowed the hype without thinking it through. How many immigrants walk into high paid jobs that are desirable to US citizens ?  The answer is very few , and those that do are highly qualified , thats why they got the job !

You are very wrong on that, many immigrants come to take high tech jobs as they will work for much less. Others like the Mexicans took the roll of union busting in factories and construction sites across the US. Oh yes our excuse was that our own workers want to much money, and are too lazy to work for $8 an hour. With the higher education we have in the US we don't need these "highly qualified" workers from other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Fair enough but my beef is with the nonsense you wrote about nuking Afghanistan or any other country that abets terrorism. Do you now accept that you were being ridiculous , given that you have recognised that the US( along with half the rest of the world ) also qualifies for your big bang ?

No I still think we should have, it would have ended the whole mess I believe. I also highly supported the use of nukes in Japan rather than sacrificing 100,000 american troops to beat them in a conventional way. Sorry thats my stance and I think there would be a lot less dead today had we done it. Just don't elect me president and you should have no worries as the military machine is the primary reason we have these wars anyway, remaking one nuke just wouldn't get it with them. There will be wars and terrorists till the end of mankind no matter what you and I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Grubster said:

No I still think we should have, it would have ended the whole mess I believe. I also highly supported the use of nukes in Japan rather than sacrificing 100,000 american troops to beat them in a conventional way. Sorry thats my stance and I think there would be a lot less dead today had we done it. Just don't elect me president and you should have no worries as the military machine is the primary reason we have these wars anyway, remaking one nuke just wouldn't get it with them. There will be wars and terrorists till the end of mankind no matter what you and I think.

No problem , you have your opinion and you present it in a polite fashion. I think you are mad but as you say , you are harmless lol. I hope you are well clear of Washington when its scheduled for nuking , maybe Trumpy will invite you down to his shelter in Palm beach 5555

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Not quite so.

 

It is accurate to say that the executive department, in particular the president, has authority in immigration matters:

 

8 U.S.C. §212(f)

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

 

However that is not the entire truth. To determine that, you have to examine the entire statute, including the amendments which which were passed in 1965, one of which is as follows:

 

8 U.S.C. §1152

(a) Per country level

 

(1) Nondiscrimination

 

(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence

 

Trump is very fond of quoting section 212(f), but you will never hear him acknowledge the limitations on his power which are set forth in section 1152.

 

You can continue to do the same, but you will be just as wrong as he is.

 

Your points have been raised a number of times, yet repeatedly ignored by Trump supporters on this forum & as you highlight the 'Idocracy' of the Trump Administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
POTUS is becoming redundant. May as well hand all the decision making to the lefty judges. Of course unlike the president, they won't bear any of the responsibility when things go wrong.
The lunatics seem to be running the asylum in the US. Dunno why they bothered with the vote. Bit like what GM and the Lords are doing in the UK.

Right on! The President, especially this one, is above the law. You said it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

And my point is the buck stops with the guy that ordered the mission - ALWAYS! You don't pass it down the chain when you are Commander in Chief. Leadership and Command 101.

Something we agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grubster said:

...there are those who never want to get off the dole and are very happy living at the lower end of living standards...

Is that right?

Doesn't sound right.

 

Or, are you just making stuff up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iReason said:

Is that right?

Doesn't sound right.

 

Or, are you just making stuff up?

Those who lived in the projects [ large free housing complexes ] in Chicago rarely ever moved away even when employment with really good pay was abundant in the 70s. Generation after Generation.  Yes they complain they want more, but rarely go looking to earn some legally. The Government then closed and demolished these failed projects and built subdivisions with free housing out in the suburbs, Now we have armed guards in the elementary schools out there.   Yes they are happy with their government welfare payments, what they use the money for I don't know but surely not raising their children as most are just running around the streets selling or taking drugs. Less than fifty percent know who their father is.

      That is mostly the black element of the happy poverty, but there are many happy white continuos welfare people also. I find most hispanics are much more family oriented and do try to better themselves, but many live two or three families per home, not exactly what the american dream was built on. Many are good people but we sure don't need more.

    Any new immigrants will only decrease the living standards of all those I mentioned and take jobs away from those who want to better themselves.

 

       I don't see an upside for the US to take immigrants at this time, we have taken more legal immigrants in the past than any other country,  not to mention a few million illegals, many already given amnesty. We cannot provide jobs and a good life for those now, how can we possibly provide for more?

      Add the possible terrorist element and I am not interested at all.  I am not religious and despise most religions as money grubbing, war starting vehicles of evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very basic operation in all of the Embassies in issuing a visa is that the person has to overcome the likelihood that they will become a public charge.   That means if there is reason to believe that someone will end up on welfare, they don't get a visa.  

 

The other basic function is to determine that they will not violate the terms of the visa (for tourists that means overstaying).  

 

To immigrate, someone has to have the funds to support you and your right for public services is severely limited until/unless you become a US citizen.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Those who lived in the projects [ large free housing complexes ] in Chicago rarely ever moved away even when employment with really good pay was abundant in the 70s. Generation after Generation.  Yes they complain they want more, but rarely go looking to earn some legally. The Government then closed and demolished these failed projects and built subdivisions with free housing out in the suburbs, Now we have armed guards in the elementary schools out there.   Yes they are happy with their government welfare payments, what they use the money for I don't know but surely not raising their children as most are just running around the streets selling or taking drugs. Less than fifty percent know who their father is.

      That is mostly the black element of the happy poverty, but there are many happy white continuos welfare people also. I find most hispanics are much more family oriented and do try to better themselves, but many live two or three families per home, not exactly what the american dream was built on. Many are good people but we sure don't need more.

    Any new immigrants will only decrease the living standards of all those I mentioned and take jobs away from those who want to better themselves.

 

       I don't see an upside for the US to take immigrants at this time, we have taken more legal immigrants in the past than any other country,  not to mention a few million illegals, many already given amnesty. We cannot provide jobs and a good life for those now, how can we possibly provide for more?

      Add the possible terrorist element and I am not interested at all.  I am not religious and despise most religions as money grubbing, war starting vehicles of evil.

Without legal immigration our birth rate cannot sustain any growth. If you want to see contraction of our economy and asset deflation, then preventing immigration is a great way to do it. We simply need the immigrants to fund our SS system, and keep our consumption (which makes up 2/3 of our economic activity) going. An aging western society without immigration is why Japan could not drag itself out of recession for more than a decade. They are still perilously close to failing because of their xenophobic views on immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

No problem , you have your opinion and you present it in a polite fashion. I think you are mad but as you say , you are harmless lol. I hope you are well clear of Washington when its scheduled for nuking , maybe Trumpy will invite you down to his shelter in Palm beach 5555

I am well clear, and I think you are correct that Washington or NY will get nuked if the radical element ever gets the chance. However I live here in Thailand which would be a one day project for China to take, and that may be a lot more likely than we think.  Back to the issue, I am here in a country that does not allow immigration, spending my money here, so I do practice what I preach, you on the other hand should not be giving your money to a country that goes against what you believe. Perhaps you could move to Oslo Norway, live the good life and get on the welcoming committee for incoming immigrants there. Good luck with all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Scott said:

The very basic operation in all of the Embassies in issuing a visa is that the person has to overcome the likelihood that they will become a public charge.   That means if there is reason to believe that someone will end up on welfare, they don't get a visa.  

 

The other basic function is to determine that they will not violate the terms of the visa (for tourists that means overstaying).  

 

To immigrate, someone has to have the funds to support you and your right for public services is severely limited until/unless you become a US citizen.  

Until the baby is born a US citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

And my point is the buck stops with the guy that ordered the mission - ALWAYS! You don't pass it down the chain when you are Commander in Chief. Leadership and Command 101.

So I take it when someone working under you really screws up a job you fire yourself. Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tonray said:

Without legal immigration our birth rate cannot sustain any growth. If you want to see contraction of our economy and asset deflation, then preventing immigration is a great way to do it. We simply need the immigrants to fund our SS system, and keep our consumption (which makes up 2/3 of our economic activity) going. An aging western society without immigration is why Japan could not drag itself out of recession for more than a decade. They are still perilously close to failing because of their xenophobic views on immigrants.

Japan is doing just fine, check the hotels they stay at here verses yours. Just because the Yen is weak means nothing to their home economy, in fact it strengthens it. Yes theirs has slowed with the Chinese boom, but they will be fine. Not only can the older people do most of the non physical work available today but many will be very happy doing it.

   How much do unemployed/underemployed people pay into SS in the US? If increasing population is the answer to a good economy than I guess world population needs to climb to new heights, I sure hope you realize what that means for the planet. Something about having a cake and eating it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

Not quite so.

 

It is accurate to say that the executive department, in particular the president, has authority in immigration matters:

 

8 U.S.C. §212(f)

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

 

However that is not the entire truth. To determine that, you have to examine the entire statute, including the amendments which which were passed in 1965, one of which is as follows:

 

8 U.S.C. §1152

(a) Per country level

 

(1) Nondiscrimination

 

(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence

 

Trump is very fond of quoting section 212(f), but you will never hear him acknowledge the limitations on his power which are set forth in section 1152.

 

You can continue to do the same, but you will be just as wrong as he is.

 

Thanks for this.

But does 1152 contradict 212 ? I'm not a Constitutional lawyer ( but don't rub it in!). If the President doesn't have  the right "to suspend entry of all or any class of aliens...as he may deem appropriate" because of a later amendment "no person.....be discriminated against....because of ....place of birth or place of residence" then it has to be clear that his executive order is invalid. If the latter cancels the former statute then he is not getting very good advice especially if the former cannot override the latter amendment. How does this work? Any bigger brains than mine  here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2017 at 8:46 AM, daveAustin said:

Btw, cue Trump to call to cede Hawaii back to the islanders. :whistling:

Maybe that's the hidden agenda of those Polynesians? :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 March 2017 17:14
Sponsors