The Travel Ban

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Feb 10, 2017.

  1. mchammer

    mchammer 1,000+ Posts

    How do you know whether your first sentence is true when the enhanced vetting process has not been enacted? Maybe those who are likely to be radicalized are not allowed in selectively.
     
    Horn6721 likes this.
  2. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    The Trump campaign caused us to fear? You have an unusual way of looking at the situation. If you don't fear (the better description is to be concerned about, but that doesn't fit the Democrat's identity-politics mantra), or fear for someone other than yourself, the possibility of being blown to bits by a pressure cooker, run over by a truck, knifed, or shot by a terrorist there is something wrong with your mental capacity. It wasn't the Trump campaign that caused that fear, it was the actions of foreigners, immigrants and potential immigrants.

    If the percentage of the green card holders and illegal immigrants that commit crimes of the nature you mentioned were higher than native born criminals, would it change your mind about immigration?

    How about performing a study comparing the crimes committed by people that are okay with illegal immigration vs. those that are not? That would be interesting. After all, you would be comparing crimes from a population that lacks a sense of civic duty and honor concerning what it means to be an American citizen with a group that is disposed to following the existing laws.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  3. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    IA
    We know immigrants as a category (illegal and illegal)commit more crimes percentage wise to their total than citizens.
    So it us likely that immigrants commit more if the most heinous crimes in higher percentage to their total as well. There must be some stats on that.
     
  4. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    I would guess you are correct given the economic status of a significant portion of illegals, and probably legal immigrants. Economic status is also another important measurement but is always ignored by Democrats because such a high percentage of illegals become dependent on transfer payments.
     
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Agree. Crime is more closely correlated to socio-economic status rather than immigration/citizen. Then again, the statistics are more heavily skewed downward given the quality of legal assistance of higher socio-economic demographics.
     
  6. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    These comments were pretty ridiculous on their face. The first of which is that the U.S. government is under a requirement to prove in a court of law whether an immigrant has terrorist ties. The "fact-checker" wanting it to be true does not make it true. The U.S. government has no obligation to take ANYONE in or give ANY green cards.

    And the second is even more idiotic. So you let a person into the country, and he then later commits a crime. So that doesn't count??? Once he sets foot on American soil, any criminal acts he commits must now be attributed not to his background, upbringing our previous philosophy, but by the corrupting influence of American culture, which clearly was the driving force in changing this upstanding person to a criminal...

    Seriously? This is why fact checkers are fast becoming jokes.
     
    Horn6721 and Brad Austin like this.
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    It's not black/white which is what the initial list put out for the Center for Immigration Studies and Stephen Miller tried to make it out to be. You can't automatically discount the influences that the individual had after getting to the US that contributed to the outcome of landing on this list. That's the point of the fact check. It was Miller's defense of the travel ban directly inferring that the background/location of these individuals was the reason for their activity. Simply looking at the various homegrown radicals deflates that argument.
     
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "Texas is splitting with other states and defending President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed documents with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday asking the court to reconsider its decision not to immediately reinstate the ban. Paxton says the ban is a legal exercise of presidential authority....."

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/15/texas-splits-with-other-states-defends-trump-travel-ban.html
     
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    The world has been turned on it's head. The previous "states rights" states are now arguing for unquestioned Executive Branch power. The Politics Gods must be crazy.
     
  10. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Husker
    Why do you think the EO was "unquestioned"
    Why would you think Texas did not question and examine the constitutionalty of the EO?

    Just because Texas in this ONE instance supports this EO does not suggest Texas is arguing for any other.
     
  11. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    I don't think this case raises a real "states rights" issue. The issue (at least as the Washington District Court, the Ninth Circuit panel, and I see it) is that the EO infringes on vested rights possessed by various individuals, such as those who possess a green card or a visa amongst others. The EO infringes on those individual rights without even the slightest effort to afford due process of law. It isn't all that ironic that Texas is supporting the power of the Federal government to infringe on individuals' rights.

    What would be ironic is if Texas supports Federal penalties against sanctuary cities and states. That is a true "states rights" issue.
     
  12. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    There is greater correlation, but the causation is behavior. It is not that economic status causes one to be a criminal. The behavioral pattern of the individual causes both problems.
     
  13. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    And you can't discount the possibility that after landing in the U.S. nothing was changed to contribute to the actions taken by the individuals, or that they are pre-disposed to such activity based on their history before they arrived in the U.S.
     
  14. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Agreed. I'm not discounting that but the list assumes a pre-disposition. That was the point of the fact check essentially saying "is that a safe assumption"?
     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  16. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 500+ Posts

    The "fact check" is a joke.

    "Safe" is the key word. If we are going to err, err on the safe side.
     
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Americans are backing Trump’s immigration reform Three to One

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 61% of American Adults favor a proposal to keep out “those who do not support the U.S. Constitution or who would place violent ideologies over American law.

    In addition, the United States would not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred for reasons of religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.”
    These questions tracked Trump’s Jan. 25 EO which sought to exclude migrants who oppose American values.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._trump_s_litmus_test_for_potential_immigrants
     
  18. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 500+ Posts

    And yet, ONE JUDGE can say, nope, sorry, you cannot do that, even tho 75% of Americans want it. That is some BS right there.
     
  19. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Following the law isn't important if majority rules? If it has such support, change the law.
     
  20. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Yet Obama, without majority Congress, can shove through the Iran Deal when majority of Americans were against it. Same with ignoring immigration laws.

    Sooner or later DT is gonna have to start using dirty, deceitful tricks like Obama and just dictate if this 100% obstruction keeps up.
     
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  22. Clean

    Clean 2,500+ Posts

    T-Ban2 goes down. Hawaiian Fed. Judge says it "discriminates on the basis of nationality".

    It appears that unelected Federal Judges now wield more power than the President of the U.S., at least if that President is a Republican.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
    mchammer likes this.
  23. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 500+ Posts

    Lawyers help me out - if the law gives the POTUS the sole responsibility to end or limit immigration as he sees fit, how does the court, any court, have any standing in this?
     
    Hollandtx likes this.
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Don't take my comments as a defense of the court's ruling. I read it, and it's one of the most politicized, lawless, horse **** court decisions I've ever read in my life. Nevertheless, here's how it reached its decision. First, it had to find that the parties challenging the Order had standing to sue. I think its rationale was pretty questionable on that, but that wasn't your question.

    Second, to answer your question regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the President the power to ban whoever he wants, however long he wants, for whatever reason he wants, the court simply didn't address that issue at all. It instead went to a First Amendment analysis and found that the ban discriminated on the basis of religion, even though the Order was actually religiously neutral. It sorta inferred Trump's intentions from his past statements against Muslims and his previous call for a Muslim ban to find that the Order was intended to discriminate against Muslims regardless of what it actually said and summarily (and with no meaningful analysis) found that the national security basis for it was pretext.

    I've got lots of issues with the case. First, I don't buy the standing arguments presented by the State of Hawaii or by the Imam whose mother-in-law was denied entry. If they have standing, then some state or some individual would have standing to sue every single time a human being is denied entry into the United States. That's completely farcical and idiotic. The people who would have standing to challenge the order are those denied entry - nobody else.

    Second, by the court's own language, the Order applies to "nationals of these six countries who (1) are outside the United States on the new Executive Order’s effective date of March 16, 2017; (2) do not have a valid visa on that date, and (3) did not have a valid visa as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017." In other words, it applies to people who have no legal connection whatsoever to the United States. They aren't citizens, legal residents of any kind, or visa holders, or to put it more bluntly, they are people who have NO FRIGGIN' right to enter the United States at all.

    Third, the Order didn't discriminate on the basis of religion. It discriminated on the basis of national origin, which we have ALWAYS had the right to do. For the court to take past statements by the President (as stupid as they were) and elevate them OVER the words in the Order is a complete mockery of the very concept of jurisprudence. Rule #1 of applying a law is to start with what it says. We're not even doing that with this order. It's an example of blatant judicial activism to the extreme. I couldn't help but think about the Supreme Court's ruling on finding the individual mandate from Obamacare to be constitutional because it was a tax, despite its authors' and President Obama's characterizations of it (which were that it wasn't a tax). Its rationale was basically that you should look at what the law actually does, not what its authors say it does. Well, this hack of a judge in Hawaii did the complete opposite.
     
    Hollandtx and mb227 like this.
  25. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Only 61 percent? I'm in that group. However don't count me as part of the group that would revoke green cards and send people who risked lives as interpreters for US troops back to a country where they are in imminent peril just because they are Muslim or from a majority Muslim country with jihadist activity.
     
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Pretty obvious who the 39% are "who do not support the U.S. Constitution."
     
    mb227 likes this.
  27. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 500+ Posts

    Deez, thanks for taking time to explain. It just kills me that the POTUS cannot set immigration policy, even tho US law gives him the duty do so, but this one judge can.

    I think the next order should just shut down immigration altogether, that way nobody is being singled out for discrimination.
     
    Hollandtx, mb227 and Mr. Deez like this.
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  29. Clean

    Clean 2,500+ Posts

    Assuming that's all true, when they land on U.S. soil, why aren't they deported immediately, regardless of if Trump's travel ban is in effect?
     
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    That wouldn't solve the problem. The problem isn't the Order. It'judges who don't consider themselves bound by the written law or at a minimum, think their policy agenda trumps the written law. That means that if we impose a general ban on immigration, a judge like this guy in Hawaii will find or just make up a rationale to invalidate it. Keep in mind that these orders open up a Pandora's box for pretty much anybody to challenge being denied admission to the US.

    The solution is for Congress to strip the judiciary of jurisdiction to hear a case involving the rights of someone who is a non-citizen to enter the United States. And if they come up with a BS rationale to hear it anyway, then the executive needs to refuse to enforce their order. People think that's crazy, but the founders refused to give the judiciary enforcement power of its own for a reason. It's a check (or supposed to be a check) on their power.
     

Share This Page