The Travel Ban

If they came illegally, they would be. However, presumably these are people who are attempting to enter legally. They're applying for visas or possibly seeking to enter as refugees.

 

How would the Federal circuit judges argue if Trump was to make the executive order on all nations? Then the administration clear the countries that are in line with what we are asking for when anyone flies into our country. Such countries like the UK, take a quick look and the mark them off the list and do so until we feel comfortable with the nations that we know who are coming to our country without fear of terrorist organizations penetrating our country.

 

They would do what every liberal judge does when he doesn't have anything else on his side - apply a due process argument. That's the catch-all constitutional provision courts can use to pretty much strike down any law they don't like or think is "unfair."

 

I don't quite understand how people who are not citizens are being granted constitutional rights before they even set foot in this country.

 

Because activist judges are temporarily making it so with no threat of consequences.

In doing so they're making it a slam dunk to reject and set precedent once Gorsuch joins SCOTUS. Libs know this and will likely fight to the death over Gorsuch.

The Hawaii judge did DT a favor by serving him up a juicy softball to hammer, IMHO. It's pretty clear he's just biding his time until SCOTUS is filled.

He simply can't risk the current court ruling along party lines on this huge of an issue with monumental consequences in several areas.

Talk about having truly open borders, that would do it.

 

Well, if you read the opinion, the court isn't doing that. It's granting constitutional rights to the State of Hawaii and an individual who's already in the United States. However, the effect is the same. If someone outside the US can get a state government or a family member in the US to sue, he can get a federal court to rule on the matter. That's what's worrisome about the standing portion of the ruling.

 

Do you mean Gorsuch?

 

Ouch, thanks for the monumental correction. Off to edit immediately. Bonehead slip on my part.

 

Per Henry Cuellar (D- TX)--

Approximately 30 countries (Vietnam, Cuba, China...) are refusing to accept the deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the US. While these countries are refusing to accept the deportations of these criminals, our Govt is still issuing visas and student visas to citizens of those countries.

However, there is already a law on the books which allows the US to hold visas from a country that is not taking back its criminals. We are just not enforcing it.

“We’re not enforcing it, which is amazing. So now my intent is to go back to our committee on appropriations and affect their funding until they do that."​

Cuellar says SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity can only be held for a certain period of time before they must be released.

“That means you’re releasing criminals into our streets because those countries refuse to take back those criminal aliens. That’s wrong. And especially I think it’s even worse that this is already on the books, and we’re still issuing business tourist visas and student visas to countries that refuse to take back their criminal aliens. That’s wrong, and we’re hoping to change that.”​

 

Good for Henry Cuellar.

 

Cuellar has always been a pretty decent guy - not a big conservative but not a partisan hack. He frequently votes against the Democratic leadership and mostly does his own thing. He has basically kept the same ideology that he had in the Texas Legislature - pragmatic moderate on both fiscal and social issues. Considering that his district is overwhelmingly Democratic, you could do a lot worse.

 

Maybe his constituents are pragmatic moderates as well? We always hear that Hispanics share many values with conservatives.

 

Quite possibly. He unseated a much more liberal Democrat (Ciro Rodriguez) in the primary to get into Congress.

 

This has always been my opinion. I've always believed that if we could just put E-verify in place and take illegal immigration out of the conversation then the majority of Hispanics would be republicans.

If Democrats didn't have immigration to leverage they wouldn't be able to generate much enthusiasm for the rest of their platform. Just bite the bullet on immigration, mandate E-verify, set strict rules on immigration. Obviously its a pain point initially but once its on the books and accepted its not a talking point in the future and we can just talk about culture.

 

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 against the Trump Administration. Regardless of how the 9th Circuit rules, this will go to the Supreme Court now.

Yes, the majority cited Trump and his advisers statements to determine intent. This fact was ridiculed by the dissenting judges.

 

Their intentions with the decision is to block President Trump, but in reality they are taking away our safety.

 

Their intention was clearly to block a "Muslim Ban" which is what Trump and multiple aids stated was their goal. The legal question as I understand it was whether considering their public statements as to the goal is setting new legal precedent.

 

It's kind of funny that we've gotten to the point where using "words" has become an iffy standard for whether or not something jibes legally.

 

The good news is that the Trump administration has reduced the intake of "refugees" and illegals without the need to have liberal judges approve its actions.

 

Trump can't seem to get out of his own way. I'm beginning to think he doesn't actually want a "Travel Ban" but merely wants the issue on the newspaper front pages.

...to which George Conway, Kellyanne's husband, had this response. Yes, George was rumored to be taking a high level role in the Solicitor General's office but pulled out over the weekend.



Here is why calling it a "travel ban" is problematic.

 

The Democrats and the media are the cause of about 20 percent of Donald Trump's problems. Saying or tweeting stupid things make up the other 80 percent.

 

He is a stubborn old fart. How do you stop a 70 year old man who sits in front of his TV and then tweets his reaction to the news to the entire nation -- unfiltered? I keep hoping that he'll learn and grow and adapt to the position, but I'm beginning to doubt it.

But, I still support him. He has America's best interest at heart. He just doesn't quite know how to go about achieving it.

 

Please do tell what "stupid things" that make up 80% of the problems are? To my lights, mostly his tweets just get the MSM up in a lather over stuff he ends up being right about. He's trolling them and he is good at it.

 

Hold on for a second...

Didn't President Obama (a lecutrer of constitutional law btw) very publicly assure the country that the Obamacare mandate was NOT a tax? And didn't his lawyers argue in front of the SCOTUS that it was constitutional because it was a tax?

Yet, Trump does not get the same treatment over his social media and public statements about a word even less legally meaningful - "ban."

Hypocrisy overload.

 

Yeah I don't think Deez gives the MSM enough credit. All Presidents make flubs over and over. The difference is Trump does it and it's magnified to epic proportions. With Obama it was swept under the rug. They even covered for Obama like the time he actually started a sentence with "because of my muslim beliefs" and the interviewer interrupted him and said "you mean Christian beliefs." I'm not going to say Trump doesn't do his part, but it's ridiculous to say it's even close to 80% when you have the MSM having less credibility than the National Enquirer. Fake News is all over the place now. They actually reported that a source said Trump has gained weight and is not happy about that. Also that he is feeling "lonely". What about all the coverage about the 2 scoops of ice cream. If anything it's the opposite of 20% being Trump and 80% being the MSM. Deez, we get you don't like the guy but just stop with this nonsense.

 

I'm not going to piss away too much time haggling with you over it because to you Trump can do no wrong. However, his biggest problems have been related to Russia and the Comey firing, but most of the problems he has had didn't happen because of the firing itself or anything substantiated about Russia. They happened because he can't help but dump gasoline on them with his mouth or with his Twitter feed.

 

Yes, they did argue that, and yes the double standard is ridiculous. Personally, I'm a textualist, so I wouldn't care what the politician said about the language under review so long as it's unambiguous.

 

Because he'd be treated much more fairly and accurately if he stopped going directly to the people via Twitter and instead said these things to the MSM in a normal press conference. Look how nicely they treated GWB and Mitt Romney when they did that. SMH.

 

Never said that. It's the content of his statements, not the forum. A Republican president should talk directly to the people to circumvent the media's spin. However, he shouldn't say idiotic things when he does.