Author Topic: Immigration Ban  (Read 62553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Liar Loan

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 491
  • -Received: 316
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #255 on: May 17, 2017, 03:53:18 PM »
Quote
The increased searches of cell phones started under Obama's administration

Obama signed the Patriot Act? He probably started the Iraq War also.

peppy and I are talking about the increase in border patrol searches of cell phones that started in 2016, not the authorization of warrantless wiretapping under the Patriot Act, as you seem to be thinking.
eyephone:  Your the snowflake lil bitch. Making up fake stories.

Offline Happiness

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 361
  • -Received: 303
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #256 on: May 17, 2017, 04:50:51 PM »
No one disputes the Prez can ban immigration from any country if he feels that country is a threat. The dispute is whether a court can ignore the stated purpose of a law and use sound bites, tweets, and other extraneous information to divine the "real reason" for the law and strike a law down based on what the court wants you to believe is the "real reason."

This would allow courts to make laws instead of interpret them because there is no way anyone can get into the head of anyone else to find the "real reason" for anything.

Maybe the real reason for the 90 day wait is to deter Muslim immigration but it is not the court's business to tell us that.

BTW, Fred Korematsu's problems were caused by Emperor Hirohito, not President Roosevelt.

Offline peppy

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 10
  • -Received: 62
  • Posts: 830
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #257 on: May 18, 2017, 09:50:59 AM »
No one disputes the Prez can ban immigration from any country if he feels that country is a threat. The dispute is whether a court can ignore the stated purpose of a law and use sound bites, tweets, and other extraneous information to divine the "real reason" for the law and strike a law down based on what the court wants you to believe is the "real reason."

This would allow courts to make laws instead of interpret them because there is no way anyone can get into the head of anyone else to find the "real reason" for anything.

Maybe the real reason for the 90 day wait is to deter Muslim immigration but it is not the court's business to tell us that.

BTW, Fred Korematsu's problems were caused by Emperor Hirohito, not President Roosevelt.

"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" [Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965]

Offline Perspective

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 119
  • -Received: 153
  • Posts: 2239
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #258 on: May 22, 2017, 12:06:47 PM »
No one disputes the Prez can ban immigration from any country if he feels that country is a threat. The dispute is whether a court can ignore the stated purpose of a law and use sound bites, tweets, and other extraneous information to divine the "real reason" for the law and strike a law down based on what the court wants you to believe is the "real reason."

This would allow courts to make laws instead of interpret them because there is no way anyone can get into the head of anyone else to find the "real reason" for anything.

Maybe the real reason for the 90 day wait is to deter Muslim immigration but it is not the court's business to tell us that.

BTW, Fred Korematsu's problems were caused by Emperor Hirohito, not President Roosevelt.

Um, try Google-ing "mens rea."

Offline Loco_local

  • Yearning for 949 / 714
  • **
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 23
  • -Received: 46
  • Posts: 452
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #259 on: June 05, 2017, 10:48:43 AM »
Kelly Ann Conway's husband:


Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 258
  • -Received: 291
  • Posts: 2777
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #260 on: June 26, 2018, 07:52:39 AM »
This is going to the SC...we will prevail there.  Mark my words.

Told ya! Winning!

Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban

The ruling concerned the third iteration of President Donald Trump's immigration restriction, which was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a "Muslim ban."
In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.
"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html

Online eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 299
  • -Received: 560
  • Posts: 9379
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #261 on: June 26, 2018, 08:01:37 AM »
You may think if it’s a win. But it extends the immigration conversation.

Offline Kings

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 205
  • -Received: 207
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #262 on: June 26, 2018, 11:23:49 AM »
This is going to the SC...we will prevail there.  Mark my words.

Told ya! Winning!

Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban

The ruling concerned the third iteration of President Donald Trump's immigration restriction, which was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a "Muslim ban."
In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.
"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html


Online eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 299
  • -Received: 560
  • Posts: 9379
Re: Immigration Ban
« Reply #263 on: December 21, 2018, 03:15:17 PM »
Supreme Court rejects Trump's asylum ban in 5-4 ruling as Chief Justice Roberts sides with liberal judges

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow the government to enforce President Donald Trump's ban on asylum for immigrants who attempt to cross the southern border illegally.

The court voted 5-4 to leave a lower court ruling in place that blocks enforcement of the crackdown.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-trump-s-asylum-ban-5-4-ruling-n951051

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Related Links

Recent Posts

Re: 3-Car Garage Homes by eyephone
[Today at 03:57:02 PM]


Re: 3-Car Garage Homes by Mety
[Today at 03:49:19 PM]


Re: Anyone want an old beater car? by Compressed-Village
[Today at 03:47:26 PM]


Re: Anyone want an old beater car? by momopi
[Today at 03:43:11 PM]


Re: Iron Ridge - LandSea Homes Lake Forest by Mety
[Today at 03:43:10 PM]