Trump to Attorney General who defied his travel ban: You're fired

[googe]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fires-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates/



WASHINGTON -- President Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she ordered Justice Dept. lawyers to stop defending President Trump’s executive order banning new arrivals to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.

“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House said in a statement on Monday night. “This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.”

The White House said President Trump “relieved Ms. Yates of her duties” and named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General. The White House said he would serve “until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.”

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed,” Boente said in the statement. “I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected.”

The announcement came shortly after Yates, a career official and Obama appointee, said she was “not convinced” Mr. Trump’s immigration order is “lawful” and that the Justice Department would not defend it in court “until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”

[R154]

The train wreck continues.

[lilmira]

Order66

[Tenkara Way]

As an Obama appointment, her days were coming to a close and she'd be glad of it seeing as her boss is as nuts as Kim Jong-il.

It's week #2 and the good times are rolling, were it a movie I'd have turned it off long ago as it is in need of a script rewrite.

[Xtrema]

:facepalm:

[dj_rice]

4 more years? How worse can it get.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by dj_rice
4 more years? How worse can it get.

Well it only took Hitler 6 years from coming to power to invasion of Poland.

And twitter wasn't a thing yet and most people communicate with letters still.

At best US will turn into Nazi Germany, at worse Civil War 2. Or the other way around, depends on which team you are rooting for.

Even if Democrats take Senate back, it's meaningless as executive orders will destroy the country.

Good job Putin.

[ExtraSlow]

I honestly thing a pretty big percentage of democrat supporters are hoping for this to be a total train wreck.

Edit, I mean, bigger than it already is. Like civil war big. Not just embarrassing governance.

[01RedDX]

.

[dj_rice]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/30/washington-state-sues-president-trump-over-his-immigration-ban.html


Washington Attorney General suing Trump over immigration ban. Lets see how this plays out

[R154]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I honestly thing a pretty big percentage of democrat supporters are hoping for this to be a total train wreck.

Edit, I mean, bigger than it already is. Like civil war big. Not just embarrassing governance.

I think this is the most terrifying part. As time goes forward, it looks like a lot of people feel this way.

[shakalaka]

How bad does it need to get until vote of non-confidence is called against him....or is that even a thing?

[FraserB]

Wasn't the current AG on the way out anyway? It sounds like her replacement was already in the process of being confirmed?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Antonito]

There is the possibility of impeachment, although that requires Trump to knowingly and maliciously break a law while president. If his handlers can convince him to follow guidelines he should be untouchable, but he is fairly easily provoked so who knows

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by Antonito
There is the possibility of impeachment, although that requires Trump to knowingly and maliciously break a law while president. If his handlers can convince him to follow guidelines he should be untouchable, but he is fairly easily provoked so who knows

The exclusion of certain countries out of the travel ban could be the start of an attempted impeachment. Well, I'm hoping anyway.

I'm also hoping for the pee pee pictures to emerge.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by lilmira
Order66

YES!!!!!

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Antonito
There is the possibility of impeachment, although that requires Trump to knowingly and maliciously break a law while president. If his handlers can convince him to follow guidelines he should be untouchable, but he is fairly easily provoked so who knows

He's already bordering on breaking guidelines. And knowing Trump, he will have no issues with doing things that are explicitly against the rules.

Not sure if a president has ever been impeached, but if it were to ever happen, now seems like a likely tenure in which to do it.

[RickDaTuner]

No president has been successfully impeached

Clinton was the closest, but the senate aquited him after the house formally charged him.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Kloubek


He's already bordering on breaking guidelines. And knowing Trump, he will have no issues with doing things that are explicitly against the rules.

Not sure if a president has ever been impeached, but if it were to ever happen, now seems like a likely tenure in which to do it.

Clinton was impeached and so was some random in 1868 Andrew Johnson(??)

Wouldn't be surprised if trump is impeached given that Clinton was for telling a white lie about his affair which really was no business of the public.

But maybe that is part of this master plan no one knows about that our chem trail, alien from the 10 planet believers keep talking about :rofl:

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by J-hop


Clinton was impeached and so was some random in 1868 Andrew Johnson(??)

Wouldn't be surprised if trump is impeached given that Clinton was for telling a white lie about his affair which really was no business of the public.

But maybe that is part of this master plan no one knows about that our chem trail, alien from the 10 planet believers keep talking about :rofl:

Clintons attempted impeachememt was from sexual harassment accusations stemming from Paula Jones,where he did lie, and withhold evidence

[J-hop]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner


Clintons attempted impeachememt was from sexual harassment accusations stemming from Paula Jones,where he did lie, and withhold evidence

I read that he actually technically was impeached by the House of Representatives but he was not physically removed from office as a 2/3 vote in the senate is required which wasn't met. So he remained in office but was impeached for the remainder. I imagine that does have an effect on his power during that time. My source could be wrong though?

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by J-hop


I read that he actually technically was impeached by the House of Representatives but he was not physically removed from office as a 2/3 vote in the senate is required which wasn't met. So he remained in office but was impeached for the remainder. I imagine that does have an effect on his power during that time. My source could be wrong though?

The house charged him, and tried to impeach him through the senate vote, but the vote failed and that was an automatic acquittal, he was then re-elected for his second term shortly after; Which to me is freaking hilarious, but it also shows the strange mentality of the American voting public.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner


The house charged him, and tried to impeach him through the senate vote, but the vote failed and that was an automatic acquittal, he was then re-elected for his second term shortly after; Which to me is freaking hilarious, but it also shows the strange mentality of the American voting public.

Looks like you are right. Makes a trump impeachment less likely i would assume as the senate is majority republican and having any party leader impeached even one as crazy as trump looks pretty bad for the party as a whole.

[RickDaTuner]

And that's how it played out for Clinton, no democrate voted to find him guilty, and it would have taken a few of them to make the 2/3 vote and impeach. There were also a few republicans who voted against finding him guilty.

A trump impeachment, as much as I would love to see it, will never happen, because as you mentioned the majority of republicans will vote against what every his charged with. Pretty disheartening.

[OTown]

To be fair it sorta looks like this travel ban is the exact same than Obama did a few years ago. No protests were done at that time, no AG to rebel against the administration. People calling this a muslim ban are taking it out of context. The misinformation continues yet again.

[max_boost]

^ yes sir .... so I'm not sure what to make of it

Anyone follow milo yiannopoulos ? Or is he alternative right nut job lol

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by max_boost


Anyone follow milo yiannopoulos ? Or is he alternative right nut job lol

He's one of the more refreshing commentators to be read lately. He speaks a lot of truth about movements he has dealt with (gay rights). Lots of people hate him because of this.

The "dangerous faggot" tour was beyond hilarious. He is very Trump like, answers to no one but himself, calls it like it is.

The democrats and media spin on all of this is beyond absurd. Just wait until the next time a democrat is elected... You are going to get gun-toting republicans showing up en masse at protests of that person, mark my words. The left has ratcheted up partisan society splitting to a level I never thought possible. The news right now lately is nuts.

[googe]

Wow you're a Milo fan? That explains a lot.

There's no media spin here, it's pretty straightforward. Again, you can read the documents. Blaming reporters is a dumb meme that the Trumpkins are eating up, but both the left and the right see them as fringe nutjobs.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner
No president has been successfully impeached

Clinton was the closest, but the senate aquited him after the house formally charged him.

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both successfully impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached and tried, and Ford pardoned him so the courts couldn't go after him, either.


The House impeaches, the Senate gives a verdict. Formally charging somebody is what the impeachment is, people have just mistakingly joined the House process and Senate process of removing a president from office as impeachment. You need impeachment and conviction to remove a president, not just impeachment.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by max_boost
^ yes sir .... so I'm not sure what to make of it

Anyone follow milo yiannopoulos ? Or is he alternative right nut job lol

He is a bit of a nut job. He isn't a racist bigot as some call him however a lot of his arguments are not rooted in rational discourse but rather his own personal opinion (like trump). His whole being against gay marriage because it detracts from the excitement of being a deviant from the norm is just a bunch of bullshit in my eyes. Also he found some random statistic that gay people are more intelligent on average (if it's the study I'm thinking of it's not even proper science and uses "estimated" IQ) so they have no right to marry another gay person because they are pulling intelligence from the gene pool. He goes on to further say they should enter into a heterosexual marriage and have side boys to quench their desires which again is all such an asinine argument not even based on fact.

He also is just as bad as the "leftist crybabies" when it comes to having really thin skin and taking to twitter to vent about everything (until he was banned, not sure if he still is)

I don't get what is so "refreshing" about him. Just because he doesn't side with the leftist cry babies doesn't mean he is basing his position on intelligent rational thought...

[Antonito]

People still like Milo even after he stole all that money from his fans? Damn you guys will put up with anything as long as someone will be a dick to your enemies.

[rage2]

Originally posted by OTown
To be fair it sorta looks like this travel ban is the exact same than Obama did a few years ago. No protests were done at that time, no AG to rebel against the administration. People calling this a muslim ban are taking it out of context. The misinformation continues yet again.
It's nothing like the Obama ban, which really isn't an Obama ban. It was rolled into a spending bill, and Obama had no choice but to push it through or risk vetoing the whole thing. There is a big difference between that and Trump's ban, Obama's ban exempted citizens of those 7 countries identified as high terrorism risk from the Visa waiver program. The WVP is where certain residents can go to the US without a Visa. So if you're from those 7 countries, or have travelled to those countries, you now need a Visa, which doesn't make it impossible, but very difficult to travel to the US.

Trump's ban effectively shuts that down, making the Visa's pointless and just flat out denies entry for 90 days.

You're right though, it's not a Muslim ban. It's a ban on travel for citizens of 7 countries that are identified as a high terrorism risk which coincidently are Muslim majority countries. Calling it a Muslim ban is certainly misleading, but it guarantees views.

If it was indeed a Muslim ban, it would extend to the largest Muslim countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan. Hell if India gets added, I'd be secondary screened every time I go to the US for my frequent travels there.

[born2workoncars]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


He's one of the more refreshing commentators to be read lately. He speaks a lot of truth about movements he has dealt with (gay rights). Lots of people hate him because of this.

The "dangerous faggot" tour was beyond hilarious. He is very Trump like, answers to no one but himself, calls it like it is.

The democrats and media spin on all of this is beyond absurd. Just wait until the next time a democrat is elected... You are going to get gun-toting republicans showing up en masse at protests of that person, mark my words. The left has ratcheted up partisan society splitting to a level I never thought possible. The news right now lately is nuts.

Lol, you have become such a character on this forum. Edgy Adam! Call it like it is, man! All those faggots and libtards! Left wing crooks! So much respect for your unfiltered interactions!

Funny quote about Milo, which is actually how HiTempGuy appears to approach his arguments too:


Yiannopoulos spends the "majority of the time voicing his opinions with little to no factual statements accompanying them", which he thought was ironic taking in account how Yiannopoulos repeatedly insisted "that he was just stating “facts.”

[01RedDX]

.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
On topic, with all this talk of impeachment, have you guys heard about the 25th Amendment? It's much easier to remove a president that way and there's a growing number of people saying it's going to get used before the end of the year.
I'll bet the same people that thought they could get the EC voters to not vote Trump.

[01RedDX]

.

[OTown]

Originally posted by rage2

You're right though, it's not a Muslim ban. It's a ban on travel for citizens of 7 countries that are identified as a high terrorism risk which coincidentally are Muslim majority countries. Calling it a Muslim ban is certainly misleading, but it guarantees views.

If it was indeed a Muslim ban, it would extend to the largest Muslim countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan. Hell if India gets added, I'd be secondary screened every time I go to the US for my frequent travels there.

Which is why I blame the media and in part social media for propogating misinformation that the general public is eating up like hotcakes.

[mazdavirgin]

:dunno:



"(f) 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."


Seems perfectly legal albeit a dick move but people have to recall you have no right to enter the US as a non citizen. You enter at the whim of the border agents and the current administration. There is no right to enter the US with a green card or permanent residency status. You only get that right with full citizenship.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
:dunno:



Seems perfectly legal albeit a dick move but people have to recall you have no right to enter the US as a non citizen. You enter at the whim of the border agents and the current administration. There is no right to enter the US with a green card or permanent residency status. You only get that right with full citizenship.

The confusion (for me at least) is that his ban directly goes against the 1965 immigration and nationality act. (gov't has stopped issuing visas as well as banning entry)


“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2017/01/28/moslem-lawsuits-dramatically-and-perhaps-successfully-pit-civil-liberties-against-trumps-order/#1f81e61f690b

Doesn't matter what we believe though. These legal proceedings will likely set the precedent so we'll have to wait and see.

[rage2]

Originally posted by J-hop
The confusion (for me at least) is that his ban directly goes against the 1965 immigration and nationality act. (Arguing entrance vs obtaining a visa is kind of a silly arguement in this case)
It doesn't. The EO didn't stop Visas being issued. It just made it irrelevant. A Visa has never been a guarantee for entry into the US. It just allows you to travel to the port of entry where CBP will determine if you're allowed entry. The EO effectively made it a default no on the entry to the US regardless of Visa.

The CBP has ridiculous powers in not letting anyone in for whatever the hell reason they want. We have employees here that visit our US office too often, and CBP isn't happy that they didn't apply for a work visa even though it's not needed for visiting for meetings. Denied. Going on vacation but look like you're poor? Denied. Trump just gave CBP a default no for citizens in those 7 countries, which the CBP had powers over anyways.

Clever ain't it?

[Antonito]

I think this is something that both sides are missing, the constitution and various laws aren't all encompassing irrefutable answers to every situation. Both Trump and the AG have legal footings to stand on here, it'll take a ruling by the Supreme Court (most likely) to get to the bottom of things. And by getting to the bottom of things I mean a 50 page novel that none of us will read or really understand and instead will continue pretending like our preferred Twitter hacks and celebrities have the answers

[J-hop]

Originally posted by rage2

It doesn't. The EO didn't stop Visas being issued. It just made it irrelevant. A Visa has never been a guarantee for entry into the US. It just allows you to travel to the port of entry where CBP will determine if you're allowed entry. The EO effectively made it a default no on the entry to the US regardless of Visa.

The CBP has ridiculous powers in not letting anyone in for whatever the hell reason they want. We have employees here that visit our US office too often, and CBP isn't happy that they didn't apply for a work visa even though it's not needed for visiting for meetings. Denied. Going on vacation but look like you're poor? Denied. Trump just gave CBP a default no for citizens in those 7 countries, which the CBP had powers over anyways.

Clever ain't it?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure section 3 of the EO suspends issuance of visa to applicants from these countries

Edit: granted I haven't read the whole thing but I am fairly certain I've interpreted this correctly:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated

[rage2]

Originally posted by J-hop
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure section 3 of the EO suspends issuance of visa to applicants from these countries

Edit: granted I haven't read the whole thing but I am fairly certain I've interpreted this correctly:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated
It doesn't, even though the title suggests it does. It's just a review to toughen the Visa process, but in the meantime, Fuck You right at the port of entry because that's way more effective (and legal) than stopping Visas (which may not be legal).

The Visa Interview Waiver Program, however, is suspended under Sec 8, but that's IIRC for renewing Visas and now require in person interview.

[mazdavirgin]

:dunno: It's just hyper weird to me that people seem to think they are entitled to enter the US because they have a visa/green card. That's not really how that works. If the border agents don't like you or anything about you, you're SOL. Only citizens cannot be denied entry into the US. Yeah it sucks for the people who are getting boned by this but they also should have had no illusion that their entry and stay in the country was at the whim of the government. No one seemed to care overly when people were being denied entry just because their name happened to match a list...

[RickDaTuner]

I think that if it was just a simple, "Hey lets go visit LA" Type entry then it would be justified, but from what I have been reading the major gripe with the travel ban, is that its separating families, stranding children, and baring people who had their hopes of finding a new life in the USA.

Also as its was mentioned, an amendment or extra screening process to travelers entering the US would have been a far better solution. I get that the whole point of the travel ban was to review the process, but in my eyes this is fear mongering at its finest.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by rage2

It doesn't, even though the title suggests it does. It's just a review to toughen the Visa process, but in the meantime, Fuck You right at the port of entry because that's way more effective (and legal) than stopping Visas (which may not be legal).

The Visa Interview Waiver Program, however, is suspended under Sec 8, but that's IIRC for renewing Visas and now require in person interview.


Interesting, this EO seems to be poorly worded in some cases. Looking at section 3g it seems to suggest that issuance of visas may be blocked based on nationality but can be issued on a case by case basis.


Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.


Maybe they themselves aren't even clear on the distinction between visas and entry. If what you said is true the above quote appears to suggest they didn't really think about their wording as they would be suggesting that blocking visas at the port somehow relates to the issuance of those visas. If they are to avoid violating the act the two have to be mutually exclusive!!

[sexualbanana]

I thought the thread was about Yates, but it hasn't been the case since post #2.

Back in 2014 during Yates' confirmation hearing for Attorney General, Yates was advised by a Senator that she will have to be willing to say "No" to the president if he were to make an order that was illegal or unconstitutional.

Yates did that this past weekend, and got fired by the new president for opposing his travel ban. The Senator who gave Yates that advice is now the nominee for the position, Jeff Sessions, whose confirmation is likely going to be passed onto the Senate for vote. So the question is: will Sessions follow his own advice after seeing what happened to his predecessor, and that now he will be opposing the very person who gave him his new job?

[RickDaTuner]

Here is the repsonse from Press Secretary Sean Spicer

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalNews/videos/1275701979144231/

Mlt1L3TVNP4

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by rage2


You're right though, it's not a Muslim ban. It's a ban on travel for citizens of 7 countries that are identified as a high terrorism risk which coincidently are Muslim majority countries. Calling it a Muslim ban is certainly misleading, but it guarantees views.


Partially right.

He suspends admission of all refugees, but asks the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims by members of a minority religion (quoting from a Slate article).

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html

[rage2]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
Back in 2014 during Yates' confirmation hearing for Attorney General, Yates was advised by a Senator that she will have to be willing to say "No" to the president if he were to make an order that was illegal or unconstitutional.
Aside from opinions, the order hasn't been deemed illegal or unconstitutional.


Originally posted by sexualbanana
Partially right.

He suspends admission of all refugees, but asks the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims by members of a minority religion (quoting from a Slate article).
How is prioritizing refugee claims banning Muslims?

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by rage2

Aside from opinions, the order hasn't been deemed illegal or unconstitutional.


How is prioritizing refugee claims banning Muslims?

The order, according to what I read from USA Today, states that once refugee resettlement begins again, they can start prioritizing refugee claims based on religious persecution provided that that religion is a minority religion in that country.

Given that the predominant religion in the countries named in the order are Islam, that gets interpreted as 'Christian (and not-Islam) refugees = okay. Muslim refugees = not okay."

Also, there's a caveat in the evaluation process that the applicant must "support the Constitution-" whatever that means.

[duaner]

To put things in context a bit more, has anyone ever protested the sixteen countries that don't allow the Israeli passport?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport

Note that six of those sixteen countries are on Trump's list of seven. Rather hypocritical if any in those six countries are upset.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by duaner
To put things in context a bit more, has anyone ever protested the sixteen countries that don't allow the Israeli passport?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport

Note that six of those sixteen countries are on Trump's list of seven. Rather hypocritical if any in those six countries are upset.

I think that is an apples-oranges comparison though.

I'm not going to pretend to know what's in the Libyan equivalent of the Constitution, but the American Constitution has it stated in its 14th Amendment that afford equal protection to all. That protection is not limited to just its citizens but everyone they deal with - refugees, immigrants and applicants alike.

Justifying that systemic discrimination is okay because a country like Libya does it, is like an adult justifying that it's totally okay to shit their pants because their 2-year old does it. As the leader of the free world, America should be striving to be better than.

IMO, anyways.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by rage2

It doesn't, even though the title suggests it does. It's just a review to toughen the Visa process, but in the meantime, Fuck You right at the port of entry because that's way more effective (and legal) than stopping Visas (which may not be legal).

The Visa Interview Waiver Program, however, is suspended under Sec 8, but that's IIRC for renewing Visas and now require in person interview.

So I looked into this a little further and according to trump's statement it does (at least temporarily) suspend issuance of visas until the Government believes they have all the necessary checks in place. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesnt even understand what he signed though haha!


From the whitehouse.gov site:


Trump

"We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days."

So the way I am reading the EO is that section 3 suspends visa issuing for the 7 countries until the subsections of sections 3 have been carried out to the satisfaction of trump's govt.

[googe]

Originally posted by rage2

Aside from opinions, the order hasn't been deemed illegal or unconstitutional.


How is prioritizing refugee claims banning Muslims?

Prioritizing based on religion is the heart of the issue. That is illegal.

If you've been paying attention, it's quite obvious that Muslims are being discriminated against here, and Trump wants it to be obvious to certain people (a subset of the evangelical voting bloc who are paranoid islamaphobes) while being just a combover hair's width on the right side of the law. There is a case to be made that his other statements have already crossed that line, but it's not explicitly in the order, and hasn't been litigated yet. That's the problem that the lawsuits are going to have though. This will be decided by SCOTUS.

Oh look, a vacant SCOTUS seat...

[ZenOps]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-hussen-reaction-to-trump-travel-restrictions-1.3957515

[OTown]

People do realize the power the border guards and government have at the border right? They could just say no for any reason and you couldn't come in. Same with any Canadian citizen trying to get into the states that has a violent criminal record. Same with a US citizen coming into Canada with a record. You are subject to questioning, full search, detention, and expulsion from a country at any point.

All they are saying right now is PAUSE, lets review these select countries with factions of extremists, lets review our process and how we should handle them, lets have more vetting for these countries, and RESUME. Its got nothing to do with religion as every person from that country regardless of religion will be screened and vetted.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by OTown


All they are saying right now is PAUSE, lets review these select countries with factions of extremists, lets review our process and how we should handle them, lets have more vetting for these countries, and RESUME. Its got nothing to do with religion as every person from that country regardless of religion will be screened and vetted.

Section 5(b) of Trump's executive order says:


(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.

Again, considering that the dominant religion in all of the listed countries is Islam, when they say minority religion, they mean not-Islam.

Trump also went on record (Jan 27) in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network:


BRODY: "Persecuted Christians, we've talked about this, the refugees overseas. The refugee program, or the refugee changes you're looking to make. As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?"

TRUMP: "Yes."

On Saturday January 28, Rudy Giuliani went on Fox News and said that President Trumped asked him how to make make a Muslim ban legal.

https://youtu.be/l9GKL6i38pI?t=3m4s

Mod edit - fixed your link.

[J-hop]

What does it matter if it is targeting Islam?

[R154]

Originally posted by J-hop
What does it matter if it is targeting Islam?


Pretty sure it's illegal to discriminate based on religious belief.. Scratch that, it is totally illegal to do that.

Besides, we're regressing as a species by taking a tribal stance against people who are suffering, who are looking for some peace.

The problem we have is that there are generations of people who haven't seen any real suffering, torment or fear. We (I included) have no real concept of what it is like to be afraid my life will be extinguished by am outside violent force. We don't understand famine. We don't understand out of control disease. I don't know what it's like to have my entire city in fire and be continuously bombed.

Sure there are people posing as refugees to create pain and suffering for host countries, but to say that we're willing to subject innocent people to continued and real atrocity is a real tragedy. Perspective. Once you meet some of the refugees and talk to them coming from Syria/Afghanistan it is only then that you may be close enough to see the fear and heartache in their eyes.

At one point or another we all need to settle down and work together.

We laugh and mock what's going on in the states, but its a sign of the times. This is a world that doesn't want to work together. I'm not convinced that this ban will be the tipping point, but for a nation trying to avoid terror, they sure are giving lots of people the motivation to do more of it.

[J-hop]

Was just playing devils advocate. I completely understand you can't legally discriminate based on religion.

But religion is something I think going ahead we shouldn't be afraid to challenge. Take for example Sharia law, it is based on the most fundamental principles of Islam. It is not compatible with western views, it is an objectively speaking highly destructive belief/social system and someone who values this probably shouldn't be coming to North America unless they are willing to give that up.

[rage2]

Originally posted by googe
Prioritizing based on religion is the heart of the issue. That is illegal.
Prioritizing Visas based on religion is illegal. Prioritizing refugee claims based on religion is not. That's in the USRAP program, not the Visa program. FWIW, we prioritize based on location with Syria getting priority processing fucking over everyone else.


Originally posted by googe
If you've been paying attention, it's quite obvious that Muslims are being discriminated against here, and Trump wants it to be obvious to certain people (a subset of the evangelical voting bloc who are paranoid islamaphobes) while being just a combover hair's width on the right side of the law.
Oh don't get me wrong, I know exactly what he's doing. I'm just looking at it from a dead set legal point of view.

[R154]

Originally posted by J-hop
Was just playing devils advocate. I completely understand you can't legally discriminate based on religion.

But religion is something I think going ahead we shouldn't be afraid to challenge. Take for example Sharia law, it is based on the most fundamental principles of Islam. It is not compatible with western views, it is an objectively speaking highly destructive belief/social system and someone who values this probably shouldn't be coming to North America unless they are willing to give that up.

I understand.

I also agree with you, fundamentally.

[duaner]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


I think that is an apples-oranges comparison though.

I'm not going to pretend to know what's in the Libyan equivalent of the Constitution, but the American Constitution has it stated in its 14th Amendment that afford equal protection to all. That protection is not limited to just its citizens but everyone they deal with - refugees, immigrants and applicants alike.
I think it's apples-apples. We have the US which has temporarily banned travel from seven countries, so that they can determine if the vetting system is good enough or to change it, whatever, to protect their citizens. Then we have sixteen countries that ban Israeli travel, just because they're Israeli, it seems.

Regardless, even if the reasons were the same, banning travel is banning travel and any constitution a country has is irrelevant.


Originally posted by sexualbanana

Justifying that systemic discrimination is okay because a country like Libya does it, is like an adult justifying that it's totally okay to shit their pants because their 2-year old does it. As the leader of the free world, America should be striving to be better than.

IMO, anyways.
I was in no way trying to justify it. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of so many, mostly on the left.

And all of this has been going on longer than Trump:


In a 289-137 vote, the House on Thursday easily approved legislation that requires new screening requirements on refugees from Syria and Iraq before they can enter the United States.

Forty-seven Democrats defied President Obama’s veto threat and backed the bill — enough to override a presidential veto given the six Democrats and two Republicans who missed the vote._
The 47 Democrats who voted for the bill ranged from centrist Blue Dogs, vulnerable lawmakers in tough reelection races and even one member of leadership: Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who heads House Democrats' communications efforts.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/260782-house-defies-obama-approves-bill-halting-syrian-refugees


Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.
...
As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Trump does the same thing as Obama and people freak out but Obama could do no wrong. And in no way would I ever support Trump; just pointing the hypocrisy that is largely from the left.

[rage2]

The argument is that Obama justified changes because something bad did happen when 2 terrorists were found as refugees living in the US, while Trump is doing it for his anti-Muslim agenda.

Pull back the rhetoric, and really the difference is a reactive approach (Obama) vs a proactive approach (Trump).

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by duaner

I think it's apples-apples. We have the US which has temporarily banned travel from seven countries, so that they can determine if the vetting system is good enough or to change it, whatever, to protect their citizens. Then we have sixteen countries that ban Israeli travel, just because they're Israeli, it seems.

Regardless, even if the reasons were the same, banning travel is banning travel and any constitution a country has is irrelevant.


I was in no way trying to justify it. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of so many, mostly on the left.


Clearly, we agree to disagree. I don't feel it's hypocritical of the left because Libya has never (at least to my knowledge) to be a beacon for immigrants looking for a fresh start, nor have they ever pledged to treat all people with respect and to not discriminate against them based on their skin, religion, affiliation etc.

As I said, it's written in multiple amendments in their Constitution (first and 14th come to mind), and it's written on a plaque at the base of the most American of American symbols, the Statue of Liberty:


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
As I said, it's written in multiple amendments in their Constitution (first and 14th come to mind), and it's written on a plaque at the base of the most American of American symbols, the Statue of Liberty:


I agree it's not the best way to go about things but I also think it's not quite honnest to try to compare non-citizens to laws specifically about the rights of citizens.

End of the day you can be denied entry for all sorts of arbitrairy reasons. Any of which can be argued are discriminatory. Like your name being the same as some other poor bloke on some random list. Yeah it's not "fair" but no one ever said customs had to be fair or rational.

Just like Canada will deny entry to pretty much anyone with a DUI ever. You could argue and rightfully so that this discriminates against people with addiction problems. Do you want them to admit people with DUI's though? Frankly I don't think we need people entering our country that badly that we need to drop the right to discriminate against foreigners.

Hell the fact we are we prioritize refuges that are female or people with families is another real fun case of discrimination.

[Buster]

What do people mean our generation has not seen suffering?

Our parents did not have Liveleak and even youtube to put images of suffering in front of their eyeballs. They had the evening news and some dog eared issues of National Geographic at the dentist office.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin

Just like Canada will deny entry to pretty much anyone with a DUI ever. You could argue and rightfully so that this discriminates against people with addiction problems. Do you want them to admit people with DUI's though? Frankly I don't think we need people entering our country that badly that we need to drop the right to discriminate against foreigners.
So simply being a Muslim is the equivalent of having commited a crime? You maybe want to try this one again :rofl:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Buster
What do people mean our generation has not seen suffering?

Our parents did not have Liveleak and even youtube to put images of suffering in front of their eyeballs. They had the evening news and some dog eared issues of National Geographic at the dentist office.

Watching on the internet is a pretty disconnected way to see suffering. When people say that, they mean IRL.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Antonito
So simply being a Muslim is the equivalent of having commited a crime? You maybe want to try this one again :rofl:
That's not true. Muslims from Indonesia have no issues entering the US.

[Antonito]

Fine, so being from Syria is equivalent to having commited a crime? Hmmm funny how that doesn't change the nature of the question at all. I'm not even against clamping down on security and probably would have shrugged my shoulders if they hadn't decided to do it in the most "fuck you" way possible, my entire point was that the comparison I quoted was fucking dumb

[rage2]

Originally posted by Antonito
Fine, so being from Syria is equivalent to having commited a crime? Hmmm funny how that doesn't change the nature of the question at all. I'm not even against clamping down on security and probably would have shrugged my shoulders if they hadn't decided to do it in the most "fuck you" way possible, my entire point was that the comparison I quoted was fucking dumb
In the context of admissibility, sure. He was just quoting one example, being the most extreme one. There are many other examples, you can be denied entry into Canada simply for poor so you can make that comparison too.

[Antonito]

How is it discrimination to ban people who have DUIs? They actually did a thing that Canada is trying to prevent.

[HiTempguy1]

You can be denied entry based on who you associate with, even if you haven't done anything :dunno:

End of the day, a sovereign nation can do whatever the f&$k they want with non-citizens.

[R154]

Originally posted by Buster
What do people mean our generation has not seen suffering?

Our parents did not have Liveleak and even youtube to put images of suffering in front of their eyeballs. They had the evening news and some dog eared issues of National Geographic at the dentist office.

Are you are suggesting that the advent of an over saturated coverage network, to you, represents the same or greater impact than living under or in that struggle?

I can't even really comprehend how much of a disgusting person you must be to take this angle from the post I made. I hope you just misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

Zero sympathy for these people being killed senselessly? Have you been to Morocco? Egypt? Shit, the south of Italy?? I'm not even talking about Iran/Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan/etc. To see and meet some refugees Insitu is incredibly heartbreaking.

As we sit in our North American ivory towers, no, we don't have any real concept of struggle.

A young boy or girl growing up on either side of the Gaza strip beg for the tribulations of one of our homeless. For the opportunity to mop a fucking floor or to fight tooth and nail for the opportunity to go to a school which has a near zero percent chance of being blown up. Do you know what it must do to you live in a tent city for a year, be promised a new opportunity in America, get money together and get to America without being killed only to be turned away at the border last minute? These people are doctors/lawyers/engineers/researchers/etc. Even if they weren't educated, what does it matter? They are humans who have every right to survive like you or I.

I implore you to in earnest go out and meet some refugees and understand what they had to go up against.

We should be so lucky to have never had to be tested like them. Maybe your family did when it first arrived, but the struggle is obviously long since forgotten.


Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Watching on the internet is a pretty disconnected way to see suffering. When people say that, they mean IRL.

This is 100% what I tried to say.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Antonito
How is it discrimination to ban people who have DUIs? They actually did a thing that Canada is trying to prevent.
You're confusing the difference between discrimination and acceptable/tolerable discrimination.

[RickDaTuner]

CNN: Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/index.html?sr=fbCNN020417federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/0301AMVODtopVideo&linkId=34122166)

:rofl:

Guess another Judge is loosing thier job..

[googe]

President has no authority to fire a federal judge, they're lifetime appointments unless impeached and convicted by the senate.

He didn't rule on the case though, only granted a temporary restraining order/injunction. These are commonly granted if one party can make a reasonable argument that their case has enough merit to be at least heard by the courts, and that if they were to win, excessive irrepairable harm would have already been done, so it's necessary to temporarily halt some action until it can be ruled on.

IANAL but I'm guessing Trump's legal team can appeal and get that order overturned by arguing that irrepairable harm would be done if the ban does NOT stay until it can be ruled on (because the terrorists can rush in before the case is done blah blah). Not sure how that works.

Apparently though they filed it in WA, since any federal judge can make a nationwide ruling, which means it goes to the 9th circuit court of appeals who are 2/3 democrats, meaning Team Trump will probably lose the appeal and have to take it to SCOTUS. There are 4 vacancies in the 9th circuit that he could try to appoint/get confirmed quickly which would help his odds. The judge that granted it is a republican appointed by Bush though.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner
CNN: Federal judge temporarily halts Trump travel ban nationwide (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/index.html?sr=fbCNN020417federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/0301AMVODtopVideo&linkId=34122166)

:rofl:

Guess another Judge is loosing thier job..

The Judicial branch, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security all going against an executive order. This is going to bruise Donald's ego.

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by googe
President has no authority to fire a federal judge, they're lifetime appointments unless impeached and convicted by the senate.



I know man, just stating it with a little tongue in cheek, you know Trump had a discussion about removing that Judge from the bench. lol

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner


I know man, just stating it with a little tongue in cheek, you know Trump had a discussion about removing that Judge from the bench. lol

He's just chatting with Putin on where he gets his Polonium-210.

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by kertejud2


He's just chatting with Putin on where he gets his Polonium-210.

I think this is his only option as of now... lol


Appeals court upheld the decision, looks like the courts are siding with the constitution, and tying small hand-hands behind his back...

I wonder what this could mean to the Attorney General who he dismissed

Trump Bid To Reinstate Travel Ban Fails (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38872680?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook)

[J-hop]

When was the last time something like this has happened to a president over a major executive order?

Will be interesting to see how long it takes the (alt) right to start claiming the judges gave in to societal pressure.

[Xtrema]

Trump presidency will be a fire drill. It's going to test every systems in US to see if US can avoid dictatorship.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Trump presidency will be a fire drill. It's going to test every systems in US to see if US can avoid dictatorship.

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/electoral-college-does-what-it-was-either-designed-54946

Electoral College Does What It Was Either Designed To Do Or Explicitly Designed To Prevent

[nonofyobiz]

Originally posted by max_boost
^ yes sir .... so I'm not sure what to make of it

Anyone follow milo yiannopoulos ? Or is he alternative right nut job lol

I love Milo. not in a gay way haha

He is absolutely outrageous and provocative. He says some fcked up shit but if you actually listen to him break down why he said it, it makes a lot of sense and I have yet to see ANYONE win an argument with this guy.

I truly believe Trump isn't what he is being painted by the liberal left.

[01RedDX]

.

[Buster]

Milo set out to prove that he isn't the fascist....but rather those that oppose him are. He needed the participation of his critics to accomplish this goal. He always has. That's why he is so outrageous...because he needs the over-reaction.

And he has proved his point in spades.

[01RedDX]

.

[RickDaTuner]

Well the ruling is in

Trump is a racists..

www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

[msommers]

The lulz are gonna be nonstop.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner
Well the ruling is in

Trump is a racists..

www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

Actually, the ban remaining in place or not has nothing to do with whether it is lawful. It has to do with giving both sides time to formalize and present their arguments.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Actually, the ban remaining in place or not has nothing to do with whether it is lawful. It has to do with giving both sides time to formalize and present their arguments.

From what I read trump and his government were provided time to present an argument that demonstrated an actual risk to national security and they failed in their attempt.

I don't know how this works but is it one of those games where you have a infinite lives to keep trying the boss over and over again?

Regardless for the executive order to have been legitimate in the first place they would have already had to analyze available data, intel and have realized a legitimate risk to national security. So no time should have been needed to prep other than fine tuning legal arguments....

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Actually, the ban remaining in place or not has nothing to do with whether it is lawful. It has to do with giving both sides time to formalize and present their arguments.

WRONG as usual - it was a unanimous ruling of three judges that the order is unconstitutional.

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Actually, the ban remaining in place or not has nothing to do with whether it is lawful. It has to do with giving both sides time to formalize and present their arguments.

He will continue to fight for his 'Good Name', and his Presidential EO powers, but we all already knew he was racist, lol.

You know it's bad when your own appointed judge speaks out against you.

But I sure hope the American people don't persecute any off these judges fighting against Trump.
You can already see the momentum building towards another civil war.

What's really funny to me though, is that all this time is going to pass in court, and at the end of 90 days, I'm sure the Trump Administration won't have a competled Immigration reform.

This is just a bully pushing his weight around.

[msommers]

Start at 4:10
CfOSmXTaH1A

Here's the full verison:
4WYSTyrK71U

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Actually, the ban remaining in place or not has nothing to do with whether it is lawful. It has to do with giving both sides time to formalize and present their arguments.

Huh?

WH presented and they lost. Now it's about if judges and courts can have a say in urgent national security matters which is the WH is arguing on.

Only if Trump didn't pissed off the intelligence community, they may have throw him a bone for him to save face.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by msommers
Start at 4:10
[youtube]

Here's the full verison:
[youtube]

Thanks for posting, good vids.


Just to clarify though these clips are from February 3 when the ban was first ruled unconstitutional. Trump has since (today) lost in court appealing this decision.

CNBC- US appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html)