Jump to content
Thailand Forum
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

darksidedog    12,047
Posted (edited)

Oh No! Not another "so called judge putting a spanner in the works?" I wish the comedy on the TV was as funny as Donalds antics.

Edited by darksidedog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linzz    1,191
3 hours ago, 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.  

Extreme vetting should be enough and avoids all these legal wrangles. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grubster    1,481

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grubster    1,481
3 hours ago, 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.  

There are millions of US citizens living below the poverty level, if we can't take care of them then why should we bring others to the mix?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linzz    1,191
5 minutes ago, Grubster said:

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

Indeed it is a bit like all the Hollywood celebrities behind their mansion walls and gated communities. Plenty of outrage but will they open their doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grubster    1,481
9 minutes ago, Linzz said:

Indeed it is a bit like all the Hollywood celebrities behind their mansion walls and gated communities. Plenty of outrage but will they open their doors?

No but they will open yours.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
atyclb    1,615

Tourism to hawaii from islamic countries is probably tiny and insignificant. based on living there over a decade. strange how they cite tourism. huge tourism is from mainland usa, japan, but not islamic countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott    11,575

Some off-topic posts and replies removed.   Please stay on topic.  

 

The number of immigrants and refugees is limited.   The number allowed to enter the US is set by congress each year.   The President can move the numbers in the refugee category around, but the number is set.  

 

Refugees are spread out among the states and they are not 'sent' to any one place.   States, through a variety of agencies and NGO's, provide services, jobs and housing for the refugees.   Immigrants usually settle with family members, with the exception of those filling jobs in the US.  

 

When the President limits the people from one country, the numbers admitted are filled by people awaiting visas from other countries and categories.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jesimps    3,018

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahab    669
3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Once power is given that the federal government can make any and all laws, overriding the states. Thats no longer the United "States" of America, thats the "Federal Republic of America". In a union of states, the states empower a federal government to govern on their behalf, but in doing so, reserve the right via separation of powers etc, to remain autonomous. If not, the state borders may as well be taken away tomorrow. Its "for the people by the people" not "for the people by the executive powers of the federal government". 

Yes, the states give executive power in matters of national security, but if the federal Government starts making up or exaggerating a national security threat, anything can be included, immigration, border taxes, civil liberties etc. 

They could shut down the hospitals tomorrow, its a matter of national security, a future terrorist may be born in one of them. 

Your straw man argument that once the Federal government can make any and all laws is not the point I was (or anyone else was) trying to make. The president of the United States (Executive Branch) is specifically given control over who and how many emigrate to the USA. Look up the statute, it is pretty cut and dried (easy enough for a liberal arts major to understand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andaman Al    5,488
3 hours ago, Linzz said:

Extreme vetting should be enough and avoids all these legal wrangles. 

You mean like the extreme vetting that is already in place? 2 years to process a person! Have you looked at the procedure? It is extreme vetting already, why change a system that was not broken, it may have needed some improvements that is all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahab    669
4 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

You mean like Trump did in the Yemen? When he ordered an operation as Commander in Chief and when it went wrong and someone was killed he said it was the Generals fault! Trump has never taken responsibility for his actions in his entire life.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahab    669
1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

Just a thought, but maybe the POTUS could stop trying to govern using executive orders and put some bills/legislation through congress.

Perhaps, but existing law and precedents on this particular question are already well established. The executive branch has authority over immigration.

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 19 September 2017 18:44
Sponsors
×