Immigration Ban

#476
#476
n_huffhines said:
R Congressman Justin Amash (he knows his ****):
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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.
Click to expand...

The law you reference is passed in order not to skew immigration makeup in favor of a certain group. Trump's EO clearly is made on the basis of national security. So the law above is where his power to do this emanates. Based on the wording, he did this to the T

Also, there is clear precedent as both Congress and Obama have affirmed that country of origin can be used to prevent people from entering the US.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 (a)(12)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#477
#477
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland’s foreign minister has defended President Donald Trump’s immigration order banning entry to people from seven mostly Muslim countries, arguing that every sovereign country has the right to decide its own immigration policy.



Witold Waszczykowski said “no state has the duty to accept immigrants” and that Trump “was elected president, he has the right” to impose the ban.

Waszczykowski belongs to a conservative government that is strongly opposed to accepting Muslim refugees. Last year it played a key role in blocking a European Union effort to resettle refugees across the bloc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#478
#478
Why are we so worried about other countries citizens and not our own? I never see people protest about our homeless and even our homeless vets. Yeah let's give people from another country a tax break and a start but ignore our own issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#482
#482
n_huffhines said:
It's these sorts of dismissive attitudes that made sure the Ds lost in 2016. By acting this way, you're going to do exactly what they did and contribute to the strength of the opposition.

Trump has done something unlawful and the execution of it is on par with the incompetence we saw with the roll out of the ACA.

But you're just going to dismiss these reasonable and important critiques because some people are overboard in their response?...history will just repeat itself.
Click to expand...

He did nothing illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#483
#483
golfballs said:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

The law you reference is passed in order not to skew immigration makeup in favor of a certain group. Trump's EO clearly is made on the basis of national security. So the law above is where his power to do this emanates. Based on the wording, he did this to the T

Also, there is clear precedent as both Congress and Obama have affirmed that country of origin can be used to prevent people from entering the US.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 (a)(12)
Click to expand...

I guess this wouldn't be the first unlawful code, LOL. This is what they will fight over in the courts, and again...Obama banned specifically refugees, not all immigrants.
 
#484
#484
n_huffhines said:
Obama discriminated against refugees, which is lawful (but I still oppose it). Trump is discriminating against refugees and immigrants, which the latter is not lawful.

Not sure what the facts are about Carter, so I can't speak to that.
Click to expand...

You're delusional, Carter banned Iranians, Obama banned Iraqis. It's a 90 day ban, stop being a spaz. Obama's lasted for 6 months. What do you have against making our country safer?

It inconvenienced 109 people, boo hoo, and you may not have said it but can we please stop saying it's a '"Muslim" ban.

How could that be if it exempts over 87% of muslims?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#486
#486
Dustin4Vols said:
Why are we so worried about other countries citizens and not our own? I never see people protest about our homeless and even our homeless vets. Yeah let's give people from another country a tax break and a start but ignore our own issues.
Click to expand...

You just hit on the core difference between Trump's supporters and his detractors.

His detractors (which include many Republicans/conservatives) are more internationalist in their thinking. This school of thought has dominated elite thought since the end of WWII. I see it as a general belief that the United States is a prosperous, stable nation at home and at the same time a global superpower that can and should seek to control the situation abroad to advance its own interests. They try to eschew or minimize nationalist thinking, especially in places like Europe, because 1) they think that type of thinking led to WWI/WWII and 2) it isn't ideal for large, multinational corporations. The United States created and largely operations the international order that runs the world after WWII. Look up Bretton Woods and a good presentation by a guy named Peter Zeihan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1QJ3hcLwHI

Trump supporters have more of a pre-WWII type of nationalist thinking - more of a "let's protect what is ours" type of ideology
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#487
#487
FleeceItOut said:
You're delusional, Carter banned Iranians, Obama banned Iraqis. It's a 90 day ban, stop being a spaz. Obama's lasted for 6 months. What do you have against making our country safer?

It inconvenienced 109 people, boo hoo, and you may not have said it but can we please stop saying it's a '"Muslim" ban.

How could that be if it exempts over 87% of muslims?
Click to expand...

Good advice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#489
#489
n_huffhines said:
So bring our troops home to defend our own borders, right?
Click to expand...

Great idea! Let those other countries handle their own problems, right? Hey, at least now when the troops come back home the current President won't hang them out to dry with substandard healthcare and facilities. Sounds like a win-win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#491
#491
I don't understand (and I've been watching and reading the news, local, CNN, etc) why they're saying muslim ban. Yet I've seen videos, even some in protest videos of Muslims getting off international flights? If it's a temporary delay for people from specific countries that have ties to terrorism, why not call it that? Honestly, what's the problem with doing further background checks on people from countries that stand in their streets and shout "death to America"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#492
#492
joevol33 said:
I don't understand (and I've been watching and reading the news, local, CNN, etc) why they're saying muslim ban. Yet I've seen videos, even some in protest videos of Muslims getting off international flights? If it's a temporary delay for people from specific countries that have ties to terrorism, why not call it that? Honestly, what's the problem with doing further background checks on people from countries that stand in their streets and shout "death to America"?
Click to expand...

Common Sense = EVIL
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#494
#494
joevol33 said:
I don't understand (and I've been watching and reading the news, local, CNN, etc) why they're saying muslim ban. Yet I've seen videos, even some in protest videos of Muslims getting off international flights? If it's a temporary delay for people from specific countries that have ties to terrorism, why not call it that? Honestly, what's the problem with doing further background checks on people from countries that stand in their streets and shout "death to America"?
Click to expand...

Joe I agree with you 100%, this will begin to piss people off who support it when it takes about 3-4 hours to get through airport security because of more and more people being questioned
 
#495
#495
Sin City Vol said:
Joe I agree with you 100%, this will begin to piss people off who support it when it takes about 3-4 hours to get through airport security,due to protesters and lawyers hindering the process, because of more and more people being questioned
Click to expand...

Fyp for clarity ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#496
#496
it only hurts the cities where they're protesting. who cares. the protests are in 3-4 cities which didn't vote for trump the 1st time. the media will portray it every city and town in America against it, but the reality is the majority of people support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#497
#497
n_huffhines said:
By law, you can discriminate against non-immigrants and refugees, but by law you cannot discriminate against immigrants based on nationality. This has established judicial precedent dating back 50 years, cited in the Justin Amash quote I know you already read.
Click to expand...

By international law right? That's not real law..that's obey if you want to or not it only draws angry letters and Schumers tears law..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#498
#498
#499
#499
Austria will ban the veil in public places as part of a raft of new measures to appease far-right opposition, its chancellor announced today.


Christian Kerr said 'the full-face veil will be banned in public spaces' as he announced a raft of new plans to be implemented over the next 18 months.


A new 35-page document also promises the government will lower taxes and non-wage labour costs, restrict access to the labour market for foreign workers and create 70,000 new jobs.


Read more: Austria announces it will ban Islamic veils in public | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebookment also says that migrants granted the right to stay in Austria will be forced to sign an 'integration contract' and a 'statement of values'.
 
#500
#500
joevol33 said:
I don't understand (and I've been watching and reading the news, local, CNN, etc) why they're saying muslim ban. Yet I've seen videos, even some in protest videos of Muslims getting off international flights? If it's a temporary delay for people from specific countries that have ties to terrorism, why not call it that? Honestly, what's the problem with doing further background checks on people from countries that stand in their streets and shout "death to America"?
Click to expand...

News coverage, especially on the various shout shows, is about as deep as the kiddie pool.

I have mixed feelings about the totality of the ban, particularly the blanket ban on people from the 7 countries listed.

However, if we don't know who a person is and we have no way of figuring out who that person is, I don't see what is controversial about not allowing them in.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top