webfact

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

141 posts in this topic

On 3/18/2017 at 1:39 PM, Grubster said:

Yes I am American and throwing insults at any countries president would be considered baiting.

I disagree, and so would some other folks:

 

 

TR quotation.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

15 years 'near' those area's? lmao what does that mean and how does that give you any qualifications? I have spent a good deal of my time IN those areas. How can you talk about dysfunctional governments and use the USA as a standard against which to measure. From your criteria then nobody at all from the continent of Africa should be admitted as all countries have inadequate 'functional Government Departments'. Same with many in S America and Euro Asia. In fact your criteria leaves Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan, Singapore  and S Korea. Everyone else in the world should stay put.That's a heavy penalty to pay for being unlucky enough to be born somewhere.

Obviously I was using functional as a relative term. In the U.S. most cities, counties and states have had good record keeping systems, for a number of decades, of births and deaths. Most of the countries mentioned, do not. I would be a bit embarrassed to claim that I had lived in those areas, and still appear to be so ignorant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 128   Posted (edited)

54 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Obviously I was using functional as a relative term. In the U.S. most cities, counties and states have had good record keeping systems, for a number of decades, of births and deaths. Most of the countries mentioned, do not. I would be a bit embarrassed to claim that I had lived in those areas, and still appear to be so ignorant.

 

Clearly not Obviously! You said you lived 'near' those areas, where?

 

So you are now expecting third world countries to keep up to date with modern record keeping systems of the US, when many in the rural areas may not even have electricity. That expectation in itself is much more reason for embarrassment. The US has a perfectly good, tried and tested vetting system that is both rigorous and time consuming. It is impossible in any system where humans are involved to expect a zero error rate, yet, if you look at the total number of legal immigrants/refugees that have entered the US, very few have caused any serious trouble other than normal day to day misdemeanours associated with the general population, and if you look at it percentage wise on nationalities 'pure born and bred' US citizens have a higher serious crime rate than any 'population of immigrants and refugees in the US. The government and its uneducated followers are nearly complicit with Trump in trying to instil fear mongering in the USA, and guess what - it is working. When you guys (or those that still live in the US) are living in a hell hole in 25 years don't come running crying.Your Government under Bannon is pulling you towards the abyss by the ear, and most are complying without a struggle. So strange, all this from the land of the free.

Edited by Andaman Al
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Clearly not Obviously! You said you lived 'near' those areas, where?

 

So you are now expecting third world countries to keep up to date with modern record keeping systems of the US, when many in the rural areas may not even have electricity. That expectation in itself is much more reason for embarrassment. The US has a perfectly good, tried and tested vetting system that is both rigorous and time consuming. It is impossible in any system where humans are involved to expect a zero error rate, yet, if you look at the total number of legal immigrants/refugees that have entered the US, very few have caused any serious trouble other than normal day to day misdemeanours associated with the general population, and if you look at it percentage wise on nationalities 'pure born and bred' US citizens have a higher serious crime rate than any 'population of immigrants and refugees in the US. The government and its uneducated followers are nearly complicit with Trump in trying to instil fear mongering in the USA, and guess what - it is working. When you guys (or those that still live in the US) are living in a hell hole in 25 years don't come running crying.Your Government under Bannon is pulling you towards the abyss by the ear, and most are complying without a struggle. So strange, all this from the land of the free.

Gee where would I start, I worked in the Persian Gulf, from Kuwait to Oman, based in Bahrain from 1998-2008, that assignment also allowed me some work with U.S. Embassies in Cairo, Nairobi, Bangkok, and assisted with the Pakistan based Embassy aircraft. Then I went to Iraq and Afghanistan working on ISR Contracts through 2012. If you want to bullshit somebody, pick somebody else. But, I'm not surprised that you would try to deflect, or misdirect what I have written, and ignore common sense.

No, I do not expect the other countries to have a system as modern or as accurate as ours. I also do not expect our Consulates to be perfect, but I do not see any reason to pressure them or the State Department, to expedite the import of immigrants or refugees. I do not call it fear mongering, I have lived surrounded by Muslims, I've seen good and bad. My opposition to the listed countries, is based more on cultural differences, and more countries should be added to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with banning people from particular countries is that it is discriminatory to individuals.   There are numerous countries where the US is or has not been able to issue visas, Iran being one example.   People from Iran wishing to enter the US were interviewed and approved/denied in another country.   Numerous Iranians had to travel to Turkey to be interviewed.  

 

In such situations, this makes the vetting more difficult, but not necessarily impossible and it gets around the issue of a ban.   In most of the cases that I was aware of, it was family members of US citizens, often an elderly parent or a minor child.   Many had submitted the visa application long before and an adequate amount of information already existed to make a decision.  

 

This situation slowed the number of people entering from a country to a very, very small number, but did get around any ban on people from that country.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 5:43 PM, ilostmypassword said:

States don't get to reject immigrants from the banned countries. Or any refugees admitted by the USA.  They can say they reject them, but the rejection has no legal force.  And, in fact, Hawaii is one of those states that has affirmed it will accept refugees and has accepted Syrian refugees..

http://www.newsweek.com/where-every-state-stands-accepting-or-refusing-syrian-refugees-395050

Now that this has been revealed, you can be sure that right wingers will now be complaining about Syrian refugees being sent to a tropical paradise while hundreds of millions of Americans have to endure harsh weather.

But Hawaii still doesn't take in refugees or any meaningful amount of immigrants. The cost of living prevents it.

 

Hawaii  literally has no dog in this fight. 

 

What they do have is a left leaning judge appointed by the Obama administration, in Obama's home town that went to Harvard with Obama.

 

Nothing to see there, then

 

 

Share this post


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

Part of the problem with banning people from particular countries is that it is discriminatory to individuals.   There are numerous countries where the US is or has not been able to issue visas, Iran being one example.   People from Iran wishing to enter the US were interviewed and approved/denied in another country.   Numerous Iranians had to travel to Turkey to be interviewed.  

 

In such situations, this makes the vetting more difficult, but not necessarily impossible and it gets around the issue of a ban.   In most of the cases that I was aware of, it was family members of US citizens, often an elderly parent or a minor child.   Many had submitted the visa application long before and an adequate amount of information already existed to make a decision.  

 

This situation slowed the number of people entering from a country to a very, very small number, but did get around any ban on people from that country.  

 

The immigration laws of 99% of countries on the planet has different rules depending on the country of origin.

 

So this has now become discriminatory? Why? Because you say so?

 

It is the basis of all immigration law, always has been and always will be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

But Hawaii still doesn't take in refugees or any meaningful amount of immigrants. The cost of living prevents it.

 

Hawaii  literally has no dog in this fight. 

 

What they do have is a left leaning judge appointed by the Obama administration, in Obama's home town that went to Harvard with Obama.

 

Nothing to see there, then

 

 

Do you have any use for facts at all? Really, you should get acquainted with something called google.


"Immigrants, Asians, and Latinos account for growing shares of the economy and electorate in Hawaii. Over 1 in 6 residents of Hawaii are immigrants (foreign-born), and more than half of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.

The foreign-born share of Hawaii’s population rose from 14.7% in 1990, to 17.5% in 2000, to 17.6% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii was home to 246,464 immigrants in 2013."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-hawaii

And your ad hominem attacks on the judge are just ridiculous. How is it relevant that lives in Obama's home town and went to Harvard with Obama? Do you think they signed a secret pact at law school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

The immigration laws of 99% of countries on the planet has different rules depending on the country of origin.

 

So this has now become discriminatory? Why? Because you say so?

 

It is the basis of all immigration law, always has been and always will be.

I am not wishing to get into an argument or discussion on the problems of immigration.   I am simply trying to explain how it works or how it could work.  

 

Countries do discriminate on who can immigrate, but the US constitution is clear on a some of the issues.  US immigration law discriminates on a financial basis, health basis and a few other criteria.  

 

I have not read the judicial ruling, nor do I have any plans to do so.  

 

The President can affect his desire to severely limit immigrants from those countries without the ban and that seems to be where the problem lies.   

 

My basic position after having worked in the refugee and immigrant services for a number of years is that it is not in the best interest of anybody for people to be admitted to a country if the country doesn't want or cannot accommodate them.  

 

The US appears to be split on this issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you have any use for facts at all? Really, you should get acquainted with something called google.


"Immigrants, Asians, and Latinos account for growing shares of the economy and electorate in Hawaii. Over 1 in 6 residents of Hawaii are immigrants (foreign-born), and more than half of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.

The foreign-born share of Hawaii’s population rose from 14.7% in 1990, to 17.5% in 2000, to 17.6% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii was home to 246,464 immigrants in 2013."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-hawaii

And your ad hominem attacks on the judge are just ridiculous. How is it relevant that lives in Obama's home town and went to Harvard with Obama? Do you think they signed a secret pact at law school?

Google ?

Google coffee is good for you. Answers all yes.

Google coffee is not good for you. Answers will all say, it is bad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed a bit more than coincidence that Obama flew unannounced to Hawaii two days before Judge Watson issued his restraining order against President Trump. Judge Watson is either a really fast writer or this was all set up well ahead of time, no doubt the latter.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-17/online-observers-accuse-obama-improper-intervention-hawaii-immigration-ruling

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It seemed a bit more than coincidence that Obama flew unannounced to Hawaii two days before Judge Watson issued his restraining order against President Trump. Judge Watson is either a really fast writer or this was all set up well ahead of time, no doubt the latter.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-17/online-observers-accuse-obama-improper-intervention-hawaii-immigration-ruling

I see you're still living inside the fake news bubble.

Reporter quits news site over Obama conspiracy story

The congressional reporter for Independent Journal Review, the conservative website whose profile has risen during the Trump administration, quit on Thursday over disagreements with the website's direction, people familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

Joe Perticone felt as though his credibility as a congressional reporter was damaged by the actions of other writers on the millennial-focused viral news site, people familiar with the situation said. Perticone removed reference to IJR from his Twitter profile on Thursday afternoon.

The last straw, they said, was a post published earlier on Thursday connecting former President Barack Obama's visit to Hawaii with a Hawaiian federal judge's ruling against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/03/independent-journal-review-joe-perticone-reporter-resigns-236147

 

Obama island trip links Hawaiian Judge against Travel Ban? Independent Journal Review Retracts, Reporter Quits -

The Independent Journal Review published an article attempting to link former Pres. Barack Obama’s trip to Hawaii this month to a Hawaiian federal judge’s ruling against Pres. Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The conservative website has retracted the article, and the author of the piece apologized for publishing the story, but one reporter, Joe Perticone, resigned.

IJR’s retraction said the article didn’t “meet our editorial standards.”

http://www.imediaethics.org/obama-island-trip-links-hawaiian-judge-travel-ban-independent-journal-review-retracts-reporter-quits/#sthash.P1rBKgyp.dpuf

Share this post


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

Do you have any use for facts at all? Really, you should get acquainted with something called google.


"Immigrants, Asians, and Latinos account for growing shares of the economy and electorate in Hawaii. Over 1 in 6 residents of Hawaii are immigrants (foreign-born), and more than half of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.

The foreign-born share of Hawaii’s population rose from 14.7% in 1990, to 17.5% in 2000, to 17.6% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii was home to 246,464 immigrants in 2013."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-hawaii

And your ad hominem attacks on the judge are just ridiculous. How is it relevant that lives in Obama's home town and went to Harvard with Obama? Do you think they signed a secret pact at law school?

Japanese retirees do not come from the 6 banned countries...

Share this post


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

Do you have any use for facts at all? Really, you should get acquainted with something called google.


"Immigrants, Asians, and Latinos account for growing shares of the economy and electorate in Hawaii. Over 1 in 6 residents of Hawaii are immigrants (foreign-born), and more than half of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote.

The foreign-born share of Hawaii’s population rose from 14.7% in 1990, to 17.5% in 2000, to 17.6% in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii was home to 246,464 immigrants in 2013."

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/new-americans-hawaii

And your ad hominem attacks on the judge are just ridiculous. How is it relevant that lives in Obama's home town and went to Harvard with Obama? Do you think they signed a secret pact at law school?

 

2 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

Japanese retirees do not come from the 6 banned countries...

Let me cite to you again exactly what I was responding to. 

"But Hawaii does not take in refugees or any meaningful amount of immigrants."

 

And the first part "But Hawaii does not take in refugees" is simply false.

http://www.newsweek.com/where-every-state-stands-accepting-or-refusing-syrian-refugees-395050

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2017 at 10:21 AM, Andaman Al said:

How can what Trump said on the campaign trail be inadmissible? Are you serious with that statement? If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig! Trump wanted a Muslim ban and however he dresses that up now is irrelevant, this is still the instrument of his Muslim ban. I am far from liberal and am definitely right of centre, but that does not prevent me from seeing an oxygen thief when I know one, and for the life of me I cannot understand how any of you lot can defend Trump for a moment.

I wasn't defending Trump and I am not interested in debating whether he is an "oxygen thief" or any other subjectivity. .

I am simply trying to decide the merits between the difference residing in 2 methods of interpreting law that seems to conflict and what is allowable under law. Sorry I am not a lawyer as I previously said so my terminology is probably shaky, but there seems to be 2 schools of thought on this issue: One being that law can only be applied within it's own boundaries i.e.according to the letter of set law, or two, rulings on intent that can embrace subjective interpretations of historically related data. My concern is how far outside the letter of the law can rulings travel to allow politically motivated decisions.

 

I would expect that the nomination and confirmation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court being an originalist would also mean a greater protection of the Constitution which in the end would make it harder for Trump to act outside of the law in any dictatorial sense.

 

I am happy for Waywardwind who I think said he was  lawyer also said "The protections of the Constitution will always control when examining any law, regulation, executive order, etc."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2017 at 9:34 PM, darksidedog said:

And Thanks to free speech, that is what is happening. It's not offensive. It's democracy at work.

I think this is offensive; smashing up shops and university property, beatings and mob violence ,torching cars and disallowing free speech, is what is also happening and from the left, not from the right.

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 05:33
Sponsors