Jump to content
Thailand Forum
webfact

U.S. Supreme Court allows broad Trump refugee ban

Recommended Posts

simple1    6,402
7 hours ago, jackh said:

Have patience. I am confident Trump has them all in his crosshairs. 

I am always bemused why some believe Trump's actions will not create retaliatory push back to the overall detriment of the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MajarTheLion    642
2 hours ago, Scott said:

There was never any doubt that the President would have at least a partial win on this one and that is what he got, a partial win.   The Executive branch has very broad discretionary power in the area of immigration.   The Congress sets the number of immigrants to be allowed in and the Executive branch chooses the number to be allowed as refugees.   This number was reduced from 100,000 by the previous administration to 50,000 by Trump.   The number of refugees is a part of the total immigration numbers, not an addition to it.   So the number of people entering the US will not change.

 

The countries in question had been put under very restrictive measures by the previous administration and a much more carefully wording of his Executive Order -- or no order at all, just a directive to the State Department, would have been much more effective and avoided the legal challenges.  

This challenge to Trump has been destined to fail. The law and precedent are very clear:

 

Trump-Carter-Code-1182.jpg

 

The Jimmy Carter days are when I first became politically aware. What Carter did and Trump proposes and has begun doing are legally identical. I don't recall any efforts to stop Jimmy Carter, though certainly concede 40 years was a very long time ago to remember such details.

 

Anyway, you stated it well when you said the president has broad powers in this regard. The arguments I've seen against Trump are silly when one looks at what are clearly broad powers bestowed upon the president regarding immigration issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MajarTheLion    642
40 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I am always bemused why some believe Trump's actions will not create retaliatory push back to the overall detriment of the US. 

Push back? For what, exactly? Syrian refugees are a regional problem. There are plenty of wealthy countries nearby who can take ALL of these *refugees* in, where they are a better fit culturally, religiously and politically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MajarTheLion    642
20 hours ago, stevenl said:

Plus a temporary ban issued on March 6 so they could improve the vetting system. I would presume that improvement has been made by now?

I should hope so. One of the biggest gripes I had with the Obama cartel's standards was their rule that DHS workers couldn't look at what visa applicants were saying on social media as part of their due diligence. That seems incredibly naive at the very least.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    11,575
20 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

This challenge to Trump has been destined to fail. The law and precedent are very clear:

 

Trump-Carter-Code-1182.jpg

 

The Jimmy Carter days are when I first became politically aware. What Carter did and Trump proposes and has begun doing are legally identical. I don't recall any efforts to stop Jimmy Carter, though certainly concede 40 years was a very long time ago to remember such details.

 

Anyway, you stated it well when you said the president has broad powers in this regard. The arguments I've seen against Trump are silly when one looks at what are clearly broad powers bestowed upon the president regarding immigration issues.

There are significant differences between Carter's ban and Trump's.   Carter's ban was a part of a broader set of sanctions against one country -- not an entire religion.   It also included provisions for exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations.

 

It was designed as a part of the pressure to gain the release of the hostages.    Trump's ban was against a religion and did not, at least initially, provide any provisions for exceptions, and there will almost always be exceptions and extenuating circumstances.  For example, Trump rather quickly learned that the military objected to the ban including Iraq, since many of the people assisting the US gov't efforts were Iraqis and would be in danger unless they were allowed resettlement.    In other words, his ban was counter to the goal of preventing terrorism, as far as the military was concerned.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MajarTheLion    642
4 minutes ago, Scott said:

There are significant differences between Carter's ban and Trump's.   Carter's ban was a part of a broader set of sanctions against one country -- not an entire religion.   It also included provisions for exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations.

 

It was designed as a part of the pressure to gain the release of the hostages.    Trump's ban was against a religion and did not, at least initially, provide any provisions for exceptions, and there will almost always be exceptions and extenuating circumstances.  For example, Trump rather quickly learned that the military objected to the ban including Iraq, since many of the people assisting the US gov't efforts were Iraqis and would be in danger unless they were allowed resettlement.    In other words, his ban was counter to the goal of preventing terrorism, as far as the military was concerned.  

Yes, I've read similar arguments. That is why I am very specific with my words. Legally, both actions are/were identical. Each president targeted a class of immigrant to ban from coming to the country, which US Code 1182 specifically allows for. I see no stipulations under the law other than the president feeling it is necessary for the nation's interests. Presumably, both Carter and Trump were doing what they felt are in the nation's best interests.

 

I would also go further and state that we should not grant Constitutional rights to people not even in this country. For example, in the US, we would never say Muslims can't go to ____________. The legal arguments I have read set aside the relevant law noted above and assign anti-discrimination arguments where, IMHO (and I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just another citizen with my own principles) the president's authority on immigration is supreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    11,575
17 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I've read similar arguments. That is why I am very specific with my words. Legally, both actions are/were identical. Each president targeted a class of immigrant to ban from coming to the country, which US Code 1182 specifically allows for. I see no stipulations under the law other than the president feeling it is necessary for the nation's interests. Presumably, both Carter and Trump were doing what they felt are in the nation's best interests.

 

I would also go further and state that we should not grant Constitutional rights to people not even in this country. For example, in the US, we would never say Muslims can't go to ____________. The legal arguments I have read set aside the relevant law noted above and assign anti-discrimination arguments where, IMHO (and I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just another citizen with my own principles) the president's authority on immigration is supreme.

How you perceive it and how the legal-eagles perceive the two are apparently different.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SABloke    3,203
Just now, Scott said:

There are significant differences between Carter's ban and Trump's.   Carter's ban was a part of a broader set of sanctions against one country -- not an entire religion.   It also included provisions for exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations.

 

It was designed as a part of the pressure to gain the release of the hostages.    Trump's ban was against a religion and did not, at least initially, provide any provisions for exceptions, and there will almost always be exceptions and extenuating circumstances.  For example, Trump rather quickly learned that the military objected to the ban including Iraq, since many of the people assisting the US gov't efforts were Iraqis and would be in danger unless they were allowed resettlement.    In other words, his ban was counter to the goal of preventing terrorism, as far as the military was concerned.  

"Trump's ban was against a religion"

 

Was it? I must have missed the part where he banned travel from Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - you know the countries with by far the greatest Muslim populations in the world and totaling 750 million in all. To put it in perspective, Bangladesh has twice the Muslim population of Iran. 

 

So I ask again, where was this ban on a religion that you speak of?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    11,575

I am not going to get into the discussion.   That is for members, but here is what he called for:  "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

 

Part of the court challenges were based on what he said.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simple1    6,402
6 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Push back? For what, exactly? 

review your post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawker9000    3,963
5 hours ago, Scott said:

How you perceive it and how the legal-eagles perceive the two are apparently different.  

 

 

Yes, especially the "legal-eagles" that are Obama appointees. Fortunately, the means is at hand to start getting past that judicial debacle...   SCOTUS was/is just the beginning.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simple1    6,402
1 minute ago, hawker9000 said:

You confuse Trump politicizing things with a widely recognized left wing rag's actually doing it.   Nice try.

 

The article is correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iReason    8,003
7 hours ago, SABloke said:

"Trump's ban was against a religion"

Was it? I must have missed the part where he banned travel from Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - you know the countries with by far the greatest Muslim populations in the world and totaling 750 million in all. To put it in perspective, Bangladesh has twice the Muslim population of Iran. 

 

So I ask again, where was this ban on a religion that you speak of?

:blink:

 

 

:coffee1:

 

 

Edited by iReason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawker9000    3,963
Just now, simple1 said:

The article is correct

Oh, boo-hoo.  The article tries to light a partisan fire by enumerating Obama's appointments to this point in his term compared with Trump's.   Big deal.   Obama appointees have created judicial chaos in the courts, and Trump is moving to undo that damage, damage which is obstructing needed immigration policy revision (for instance) and restore some badly needed and overdue constitutional sanity.  It's his job and definitely part of why he was elected, and he's doing it. 

 

But by numbly bleeting that "the article is correct", you're deflecting.  I said it was the magazine doing the "politicizing" that simple1 was blaming on Trump, and I'M CORRECT!

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

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 20 September 2017 00:08
Sponsors
×