webfact

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

141 posts in this topic

I really hope and pray that nuclear weapons aren't thrown about as a show of strength as has been suggested here. That would make the US the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in anger (for the 2nd time). Hard call telling Iran and others that they cannot develop them. 

Share this post


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

Using your logic any military operation with casualties is a failure? WWII using your logic was a complete failure and we should have let Germany take over Europe and left Asia to the Japanese so we would not take any casualties. People die during war (news flash) hopefully more of the other guys than our own. US Navy Seals are professional warriors, every one of them is a volunteer, and they know the risks of going into combat. 

So ... those SEALs should just shut up and die quietly?:post-4641-1156693976:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2017 at 11:45 AM, Grubster said:

I think Trump should begin to build some very large housing projects in Hawaii, then send all these immigrants there, problem solved.

Actually, since DT is your POTUS .. sending them to your neighborhood so you and your posse can keep an eye on them is a better option.:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 79   Posted (edited)

Americans themselves are illegal immigrants in the land of native Indian.:passifier:

Edited by redwinecheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 81   Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, Grubster said:

I think we should have nuked Afghanistan

When I see  Kim Jong-u and his boys playing with missiles I think one day they will push the wrong buttons.

Edited by redwinecheese

Share this post


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

Actually, since DT is your POTUS .. sending them to your neighborhood so you and your posse can keep an eye on them is a better option.:smile:

I don't think Thailand will let them immigrate here thank goodness, nice try though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grubster said:

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

LOL, not a Military person then!  No you do not fire yourself, you take responsibility as the commander. He authorised the mission, it was HIS decision, he grows a pair of balls and he takes responsibility for HIS actions, he does not pass the buck down the chain. Simple, if he does not have the moral courage to do that, he does not deserve to hold the office he does, nor does he deserve the respect of any US serviceman.

 

If he stood there and said 'we made mistakes, I take responsibility', people would have thought 'ok, mistakes happen, he is taking a strong and moral position, give hime our support'. I would have backed him had he said that, but he took the man child way out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

And there we have the character of the Grubstaker personified.

Yes perhaps you do,  funny you say Grubstaker as I ate at a restaurant with that name when back home, when I got home thirty minutes later the restaurant was gone, totally destroyed by a tornado. Maybe somebody or thing just missed me there. Maybe I should change my beliefs, not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

LOL, not a Military person then!  No you do not fire yourself, you take responsibility as the commander. He authorised the mission, it was HIS decision, he grows a pair of balls and he takes responsibility for HIS actions, he does not pass the buck down the chain. Simple, if he does not have the moral courage to do that, he does not deserve to hold the office he does, nor does he deserve the respect of any US serviceman.

 

If he stood there and said 'we made mistakes, I take responsibility', people would have thought 'ok, mistakes happen, he is taking a strong and moral position, give hime our support'. I would have backed him had he said that, but he took the man child way out.

It is his responsibility to his troops to have the best leading them and he needs to hold those responsible for mistakes accountable. The buck stops here is a political statement that has worked for many presidents, evidently it is important to you that your president use that statement that basically holds no value. Many have said it, none have meant it. Yes he has to take responsibility and react accordingly to lesson the danger to his troops. The responsible thing to do is eliminate the weak link. I'm sure the family of the fallen hero was very pleased and proud of the phone call they got from President Trump. Yes I was in the military. Those who were not seem to know a lot about the chain of command sometimes, while they have never lived it. Trust me when you screw up your commander is not saying the buck stops with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, wouldn't like to inconvenience Barry's new headquarters would they https://kek.gg/i/7QzfyF.png  the judge's decision being clearly in breach of the Logan Act, you know, the one they insist on throwing around about Trump. 

 

Not partisan, just use the critical thinking sadly lacking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 88   Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Yes perhaps you do,  funny you say Grubstaker as I ate at a restaurant with that name when back home, when I got home thirty minutes later the restaurant was gone, totally destroyed by a tornado. Maybe somebody or thing just missed me there. Maybe I should change my beliefs, not.

You can thank auto spell for that one. I corrected it before you finished posting.

Edited by Andaman Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grubster said:

It is his responsibility to his troops to have the best leading them and he needs to hold those responsible for mistakes accountable. The buck stops here is a political statement that has worked for many presidents, evidently it is important to you that your president use that statement that basically holds no value. Many have said it, none have meant it. Yes he has to take responsibility and react accordingly to lesson the danger to his troops. The responsible thing to do is eliminate the weak link. I'm sure the family of the fallen hero was very pleased and proud of the phone call they got from President Trump. Yes I was in the military. Those who were not seem to know a lot about the chain of command sometimes, while they have never lived it. Trust me when you screw up your commander is not saying the buck stops with him.

Well the Father of the fallen hero was not pleased at all concerning anything the President did or said surrounding the matter. Clearly US and British military have a different ethos as when I was a Military Commander I always took responsibility for what occurred with my men, as Blanchard wrote, when your people do something wrong, the first person you have to look at is yourself - did you brief them correctly, did you resource them correctly, did you plan correctly etc etc and if the answer has any doubt then you make improvements and you as the Commander accept responsibility. Everyone in my chain of command both up and down respected any person that stood up and took rightful responsibility. Funny I met a few really good US Military Commanders that I worked with closely and they were of the same military ethos. Your answer and thought processes are a grave disappointment to the great work they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

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.

 

Yup. Just makin' stuff up.

 

Just a huge  pile of ignorant clichés.

 

Gonna need more substantial data than the stereotypical drivel you've posted here.

 

"what they use the money for I don't know but surely not raising their children"

In other words, you're really not sure what you are talking about.

Just makin' stuff up to suit your racial profiling agenda.

 

And ; "Happy poverty"?? :blink:

 

"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."

 

Since you seem to know, exactly what is the american dream built on?

 

"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."

 

Yup, just makin' stuff up and stating it as if it were fact.

 

P.S. Nice touch with the hispanic description: "Many are good people"

Where have I heard that before...

And of course, we sure don't need any more good people. 

According to you.

Share this post


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

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?

The INA (including 212(f)) became law in the early 1950s and was amended in 1965, including section 1152.

 

One of the first things that you learn in law school (or at least one did when I went to law school 40 years ago) is that in the event of a conflict, the later provision rules; if that is not clear, then the legislative history is examined.  In this case, it seems pretty clear that 1152 acts as a check on the powers enumerated in 212(f).  Beyond that, the Constitutional prohibition on discrimination based on religion has been argued in the courts examining the travel ban, and found to be controlling,.

 

Trump does not have a leg to stand on; it is easy to make all kinds of wild promises in a campaign, but they inevitably fail when tested against the law and the Constitution, as he is painfully learning now. 

 

One cannot bluff or bully a federal court judge, although Trump and his advisers seem to think they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 92   Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, redwinecheese said:

Americans themselves are illegal immigrants in the land of native Indian.:passifier:

Indeed:

Homeland Security.jpg

Edited by WaywardWind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2017 at 8:17 AM, AlexRich said:

Good that there's enough sensible people left not to fall for it.

 

That'll be why he's president then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of immigrants from the banned countries taken in by Hawaii - 0

Judge in the same class as Obama at Harvard.

Judge appointed by Obama.

Libs gotta lib...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

 

That'll be why he's president then.

Due to the electoral college system ... not because he won the majority of votes ... he missed that by 3 million approx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grubster said:

Until the baby is born a US citizen.

Then only the baby is a US citizen and that does not necessarily allow the parents to stay.   They may have to chose to take their child with them or to leave the child.

 

About a month ago a woman in AZ was deported, leaving 2 minor children (US citizens) in the States.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/3/2560 at 8:02 AM, Scott said:

If the goal of the President is to widen the divide among Americans, then he is a success.   If his goal is to protect the US from terrorism, then he is sadly lacking.  

 

It is well within the purview of the President, with the help of his State Department to severely limit the number of people entering from certain countries, but an outright ban is going to raise eyebrows.    Somewhere in those countries is some little old lady whose son is in the US and now has sufficient funds and a good enough job to bring his aged mother to the US for a visit (or to live).   So let her come.   His brother's and nephews might require a much more lengthy and careful review.

 

Somewhere in one of those countries is a child who has suffered a catastrophic injury or disease that can best be treated in the US.   So let him come for treatment.   

 

Somewhere in one of those countries someone has a spouse awaiting the visa.   After a thorough check, let her in.  

 

There are too many variables and exceptions in the human condition and situation to try the outright full-fledged ban.  

The quote about kids needing hospital treatment happened. And to make it worse. This little boy had 2-3 operations already in the states. His mother and Father had to go out of the country( USA) with the boy, for a few weeks. They left the other daughter in the states with a friend. Now they were barred from returning. What a joke this President.

Share this post


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

Then only the baby is a US citizen and that does not necessarily allow the parents to stay.   They may have to chose to take their child with them or to leave the child.

 

About a month ago a woman in AZ was deported, leaving 2 minor children (US citizens) in the States.  

I don't agree with girls coming to the USA, 4-5 months pregnant only to give birth and their baby is American. This is taking advantage of the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Blindedbythelight said:

I don't agree with girls coming to the USA, 4-5 months pregnant only to give birth and their baby is American. This is taking advantage of the system.

I am not sure how that is taking advantage of the system.   They get no special treatment for the parents.    For many, many people it's simply an insurance policy.   They have a child who is eligible for a US passport.   It is not uncommon amongst the more affluent Chinese.

 

The child may have the right to reside in the US, but the parents do not.   The people who do this are generally not poor, because if they were, they would not be admitted to the US to begin with.  

 

There are a lot of things that people don't agree with but the Constitution is pretty clear that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen.  

 

I suppose Trump could add something to his Executive Order baring women of child bearing age.   I don't think that would fly either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some off-topic posts and replies have been removed.   The election and electoral college really isn't relevant to this thread.  

 

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 31 March 2017 05:32
Sponsors