Immigration Ban

Perspective said:
spootieho said:
Perspective said:
Were Trump's language campaigning not so extreme
Click to expand...
No, because people like you dishonestly took things like that way out of context for the purpose of spreading hate in America while trying to get your team's candidate elected.
Click to expand...

Opposing a Muslim ban is "spreading hate"? Hmm, is that like, reporting facts is "fake news"?
Click to expand...
or not reporting, like the infamous Bowling Green Massacre, ha!
 
Seems like this is not headed for the SCOTUS at the moment. With at best (for the WH) a probable tie, this would be of no use to them. I guess a new EO may be coming soon? Add Venezuela to the mix after they have been found to be selling passports to the highest bidder?
 
Perspective said:
spootieho said:
Perspective said:
Were Trump's language campaigning not so extreme
Click to expand...
No, because people like you dishonestly took things like that way out of context for the purpose of spreading hate in America while trying to get your team's candidate elected.
Click to expand...
Opposing a Muslim ban is "spreading hate"?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that.  You are showing your dishonesty again by taking things out of context and proving my point.  Pretty ironic...

Perspective said:
Hmm, is that like, reporting facts is "fake news"?
Click to expand...
IMO, dishonestly representing things or lies by omission would fall under "fake news".  I realize that "fake news" originally described completely made up stories, but what the media has been doing lately blurs the lines. 
 
spootieho said:
Perspective said:
spootieho said:
Perspective said:
Were Trump's language campaigning not so extreme
Click to expand...
No, because people like you dishonestly took things like that way out of context for the purpose of spreading hate in America while trying to get your team's candidate elected.
Click to expand...
Opposing a Muslim ban is "spreading hate"?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that.  You are showing your dishonesty again by taking things out of context and proving my point.  Pretty ironic...

Perspective said:
Hmm, is that like, reporting facts is "fake news"?
Click to expand...
IMO, dishonestly representing things or lies by omission would fall under "fake news".  I realize that "fake news" originally described completely made up stories, but what the media has been doing lately blurs the lines.
Click to expand...

It's just a question. You're free to qualify what you were trying to say. That's what I was hearing.
 
Quote from great Abe Lincoln really apt here on his birthday (this Sunday).  It is like we are in a time warp. 
https://thebaffler.com/blog/its-already-happened-here-kendzior

It was 1855, and Abraham Lincoln was in a mood.

?Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid,? he wrote to his friend Joshua Speed, describing the rise of the bigoted, anti-immigrant Know-Nothing party. ?As a nation, we begin by declaring that ?all men are created equal.? We now practically read it ?all men are created equal, except n*g**.? When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ?all men are created equal, except n*g**, and foreigners, and Catholics.? When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty?to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.?


 
Interesting opinion piece:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wh...gling-of-the-immigration-ban-order-2017-02-10

Opinion: What?s really behind Trump?s bungling of the immigration-ban order?
By Brett Arends
Published: Feb 10, 2017 8:00 a.m. ET


What on Earth is wrong with Donald Trump? Did he actually set out to lose his immigration ban in the appeals court deliberately, so that he could whip up his base into ever more fury at the ?elites??

Contrary to what you may hear, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Thursday did not ? repeat: did not ? repudiate Trump?s legal right to suspend selective immigration. It just repudiated the bungling incompetence with which his administration made the case.

Yes, the three justices ruled: ?Courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations? of the president and Congress. That is ?an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence.? Indeed, as I pointed out earlier this week, it is well established that the president has very broad discretion to suspend immigration where he deems it necessary.

But that was not what the Trump administration claimed. Instead, they argued that they were actually above the law, the Constitution or legal review.

?The Government has taken the position that the President?s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections,? the justices wrote with disbelief. They added: ?There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.?

You couldn?t make this up.

Trump is now raging at the judges. But the blame for this fiasco lies entirely with him, and no one else.

All the administration had to tell the appeals court was that it had rational reasons for suspending immigration from the seven specific countries. Even with national security details ?redacted,? the president?s lawyer could have laid out a simple case. Call it Iraq War II. ?Intelligence sources say ... intelligence sources warn ... We have received intelligence ...? And so on. He could have kept it vague and menacing. He could have made it up. So long as he offered something. All the courts needed was an excuse.

Cue our old friend ?Curveball.?

The justices were very unlikely to second-guess a president?s national security intelligence. They don?t consider that to be their job, they don?t want to do it, and they know how dangerous that could be ? for the country and, indeed, for the standing of the courts.

Legal precedent strongly suggests that they?d support the president so long as he could reassure them he had a rational basis for his action.

But that?s not what Trump?s lawyer did.

Instead, August Flentje, a lawyer for the Trump administration, spent most of the hearing arguing the president?s actions were beyond review ? and that individual states had no ?legal standing? to challenge his executive order either. That was another stupid and fruitless argument, especially as Washington, the state in question, had shown clearly how it was affected.

Trump?s refusal to offer any kind of rational excuse for his immigration ban produced a double whammy. First, it insulted the judges by saying they had no right to review his actions. Second, it left him wide open to a First Amendment challenge. As the judges noted, there was plenty of Trump administration rhetoric suggesting this might be an unconstitutional ban on Muslims. Trump?s refusal to offer an alternative, rational explanation for the executive order was therefore a real problem.

But maybe none of this should be a surprise.

What should we expect from a president whose special counselor hawks Trump family merchandise from the White House podium, and whose chief of staff recently heralded the arrival of our ?new King??

I?ve gone blue in the face over the past 20 months reminding MarketWatch readers that, no, Donald Trump was not a ?successful businessman? or a ?successful executive? in the traditional meanings of those terms. He is a serial bankrupt. He inherited a fortune from his dad, and made more only by scamming people, and sticking it to his bondholders and stockholders. Many of you would be rich, too, if you had his start, his greed,and his lack of ethics.

It would be genuinely interesting to see a true business leader take on the role of president. But Donald Trump is no Steve Jobs, no Henry Ford, no Bill Gates, no Walt Disney, no Warren Buffett. He is no value creator, no genius and no leader. He is a con artist, a huckster, the equivalent of a hawker of used cars or subprime derivatives. His skills are chutzpah, greed and a cynical, rat-like cunning.

The law still favors his ban on immigration. The question is going to be whether his administration makes a real legal argument when it goes, as it surely will, to the Supreme Court.

My original take was that Trump had merely bungled his case. But I could be wrong ? very wrong.

I mean what I say about his ?rat-like cunning.? Trump is a master manipulator. It is actually plausible that he screwed up this lawsuit deliberately. Trump and Trumpism thrive on conflict, paranoia and resentment. News that a bunch of ?fancy-pants, elitist lawyers? at the 9th Circuit ? in San Francisco, no less ? has thwarted his immigration ban is great politics for him. It whips up his base into fury, and encourages them to look to him, even more, as their ?protector? against the ?elites.?

And, without wishing to be ghoulish, just imagine if an immigrant from one of these seven countries were by remarkable coincidence to cause a terrorist attack. Trump would look like a hero to his fans. His opponents would look terrible.

Would Trump do this deliberately? Would he play politics with people?s lives in order to consolidate his regime?s grip on power?

Well, that?s what Vladimir Putin did. And we know how much Trump admires Putin.
Click to expand...
 
https://lawfareblog.com/does-trump-...-or-donald-mcgahn-simply-ineffectual-or-worse

Does Trump Want to Lose the EO Battle in Court? Or is Donald McGahn Simply Ineffectual (or Worse)?

By Jack Goldsmith  Monday, February 6, 2017, 8:22 AM

I?m starting to believe that either Donald Trump wants courts to strike down the Immigration Executive order, or that his White House Counsel is incompetent or ineffectual.

The Immigration EO has a surprisingly strong basis in law but was issued in haste, without proper interagency coordination, without proper notice, without adequate consideration of its implications, and with a media strategy, if it was that, that suggested that the EO was motivated by discrimination against Muslims.  These factors combined with the subject matter and scope of the EO to alarm many people and to invite a fierce initial legal reaction from civil society groups, states, and judges across the country.   

In the face of the initial legal setbacks, Trump at 5:12 a.m. on Saturday tweeted:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
5:12 AM - 4 Feb 2017
  33,973 33,973 Retweets  161,192 161,192 likes
Early the same afternoon, at 12:44 p.m., he added on Twitter:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?
12:44 PM - 4 Feb 2017
  33,639 33,639 Retweets  150,411 150,411 likes
One hour later, he tweeted:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
1:44 PM - 4 Feb 2017
  29,846 29,846 Retweets  138,540 138,540 likes
At 4:48 pm he tweeted:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!
4:48 PM - 4 Feb 2017
  28,587 28,587 Retweets  131,103 131,103 likes
The next day, yesterday, at 12:39 pm, Trump said on Twitter:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!
12:39 PM - 5 Feb 2017
  29,533 29,533 Retweets  139,324 139,324 likes
A few minutes later he said:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!
12:42 PM - 5 Feb 2017
  28,688 28,688 Retweets  147,943 147,943 likes
I would describe the progression of these tweets as follows.  The first one takes issue with Judge Robart?s decision, predicts it will be overturned, and questions Robart?s competence (?so-called judge?).  Some also interpreted this first tweet, in the words of one credible critic, as ?an attack on the independence of the judiciary.?  But the tweets that followed the first one, it seems to me, grew progressively more aggressive, for they blame Judge Robart and the judiciary more broadly with significantly weakening American safety.  Many ?very bad and dangerous people? may be pouring into our country? because of Robart?s ruling, Trump said; Robart ?opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart?; Robart put the country in ?peril? and he and the court system are to ?blame? if ?something happens?; and the courts are making the job of keeping America safe ?very difficult.?

If you are finding Lawfare useful in these times, please consider making a contribution to support what we do.

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
What might lead Trump to criticize Robart and judges for weakening American security?  It is possible that he thinks his tweets will pressure the judges to cave and act in his favor.  Judges don?t like to be responsible for national security debacles (which explains the deference they often give the political branches in this context), and thus they might worry about Trump?s predictions of a causal nexus between their rulings and a future terrorist attack.

The much more likely result of his tweets, however, is just the opposite.  The Executive branch often successfully argues?quietly, in briefs and at oral argument, with citations to precedent?for its superior competence to judges in national security, and for the potentially dangerous consequences that might flow from too much judicial review in that context.  But when arguments for deference to the President are made via threatening public tweets before an actual attack, they will certainly backfire.  The tweets will make it very, very hard for courts in the short term to read immigration and constitutional law, as they normally would, with the significant deference to the President?s broad delegated powers from Congress and to the President?s broad discretion in foreign relations.  Judges in the short term will be influenced by the reaction to the EO Immigration order, and by doubts about executive process, integrity, truthfulness, and motivation that the manner of its issuance implies.  They will also worry a lot about being perceived to cave to executive pressure.  The pressure from Trump, and related events, thus make it more likely?much more likely, in my view?that the Ninth Circuit and, if it comes to it, the Supreme Court will invalidate the EO in some fashion.

Last night I tweeted: ?Increasingly apparent?from the way Trump rolled out EO to his attack on courts?that he wants EO struck down. Not just incompetence.?  Here is what I meant.  The clearly foreseeable consequence of the roll-out combined with Trump?s tweets is to weaken the case for the legality of the EO in court.  Why might Trump want to do that?  Assuming that he is acting with knowledge and purpose (an assumption I question below), the only reason I can think of is that Trump is setting the scene to blame judges after an attack that has any conceivable connection to immigration.  If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls.  This will deflect blame for the attack.  And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack.  After a bad terrorist attack at home, politicians are always under intense pressure to loosen legal constraints.  (This was even true for near-misses, such as the failed Underwear bomber, which caused the Obama administration to loosen constraints on its counterterrorism policies in many ways.)  Courts feel these pressures, and those pressures will be significantly heightened, and any countervailing tendency to guard against executive overreaction diminished, if courts are widely seen to be responsible for an actual terrorist attack.  More broadly, the usual security panic after a bad attack will be enhanced quite a lot?in courts and in Congress?if before the attack legal and judicial constraints are seen to block safety.  If Trump assumes that there will be a bad terrorist attack on his watch, blaming judges now will deflect blame and enhance his power more than usual after the next attack.

Many people responded to my tweet last night by saying that I was giving Trump too much credit.  He is not that clever, they said.  His tweets are an angry impulsive reaction, not part of a plan.  Perhaps these criticisms are right; I don?t know.  But if they are right, then the White House has a different problem (among others): An ineffectual or incompetent White House Counsel.

One person who must bear responsibility for the awful rollout of the EO is White House Counsel Donald McGahn.  The White House Counsel is charged with (among other things) ensuring proper inter-agency coordination on important legal policies and with protecting the President from legal fallout.  McGahn should have anticipated and corrected in advance the many foreseeable problems with the manner in which the EO was rolled out.  And he should have advised the President after his first anti-Robart tweet, and after the other more aggressive ones, that the tweets were hurting the President?s legal cause.

If McGahn did not do these things, he is incompetent, and perhaps we can attribute impulsive incompetence to the President.  But if McGahn did do these things?if he tried to put the brakes on the EO, and if he warned his client about the adverse impact of his tweets?then he has shockingly little influence with the President and within the White House (i.e. he is ineffectual).  And if McGahn is ineffectual as opposed to just incompetent?if he did, in other words, warn the President about the impact of his tweets and was ignored?then that lends credence to the suspicion that Trump knows the consequences of his actions and wants to lose in court, with the most plausible explanation being that he is planning for after the next attack.
Click to expand...
 
Perspective said:
irvinehomeowner said:
spootieho said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-thousands-rally-iran-against-trump-chant-death-081038000.html

Hundreds of thousands rally in Iran against Trump, chant 'Death to America'
Click to expand...

Prepare to go to war!
Click to expand...

No better way to show you're tough on terrorists than to go to war. It's coming, and it'll be on the conscience of every Trump apologist for the remainder of their lives.
Click to expand...

That's easy to say when you can't answer yes or no to the patriot question. (Citing a us court case does not count)  ;)
 
eyephone said:
Perspective said:
irvinehomeowner said:
spootieho said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-thousands-rally-iran-against-trump-chant-death-081038000.html

Hundreds of thousands rally in Iran against Trump, chant 'Death to America'
Click to expand...

Prepare to go to war!
Click to expand...

No better way to show you're tough on terrorists than to go to war. It's coming, and it'll be on the conscience of every Trump apologist for the remainder of their lives.
Click to expand...

That's easy to say when you can't answer yes or no to the patriot question. (Citing a us court case does not count)  ;)
Click to expand...

Tell me what patriotism means to you, and I'll tell you if I share your opinion.
 
Perspective  - you don't need to answer the patriot question - Trump voters wrap themselves in the flag and the bald eagle imagery to avoid logical discussion.  One only has to turn the clock back to the period before the Iraq war and how these same Trump supporters who are now blaming Bush and neocons , treated those who opposed the conflict back then.

Interestingly, if we continue down this thuggish path to autocracy,  patriotism will come  to be defined as " do you or do you not support our overlord Trump "  .  The customs and border patrol agents have already gotten the message and non citizens entering the US are being questioned on their pro or anti Trump views. 
 
"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag." -Craig Washington
 
fortune11 said:
Perspective  - you don't need to answer the patriot question - Trump voters wrap themselves in the flag and the bald eagle imagery to avoid logical discussion.  One only has to turn the clock back to the period before the Iraq war and how these same Trump supporters who are now blaming Bush and neocons , treated those who opposed the conflict back then.

Interestingly, if we continue down this thuggish path to autocracy,  patriotism will come  to be defined as " do you or do you not support our overlord Trump "  .  The customs and border patrol agents have already gotten the message and non citizens entering the US are being questioned on their pro or anti Trump views.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but asking folks to explain a terrible question, requires them to think about how silly it is while they're trying to justify it. Maybe something can be learned...
 
Perspective said:
fortune11 said:
Perspective  - you don't need to answer the patriot question - Trump voters wrap themselves in the flag and the bald eagle imagery to avoid logical discussion.  One only has to turn the clock back to the period before the Iraq war and how these same Trump supporters who are now blaming Bush and neocons , treated those who opposed the conflict back then.

Interestingly, if we continue down this thuggish path to autocracy,  patriotism will come  to be defined as " do you or do you not support our overlord Trump "  .  The customs and border patrol agents have already gotten the message and non citizens entering the US are being questioned on their pro or anti Trump views.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but asking folks to explain a terrible question, requires them to think about how silly it is while they're trying to justify it. Maybe something can be learned...
Click to expand...

I'm not the one to tell people to be afraid and that bad things will happen. (This was made in another thread)

Source:http://www.talkirvine.com/index.php?topic=14972.495

My thought process was to ask if you believe in the pledge of allegance or stand when the national anthem is played because of the comments you previously made. You responded to Movingup citing a court case when he asked you the same question. I briefly looked up the court case and it was about Japanese internment camps which has nothing to do with believing in the pledge of alliegance and respecting the national anthem.
 
Fortune - you are correct he doesn't have to answer it. I can tell you this, being a patriot is not a republican thing. I know democrats, republicans, independents, and others that love this country and want to be here.

fortune11 said:
Perspective  - you don't need to answer the patriot question - Trump voters wrap themselves in the flag and the bald eagle imagery to avoid logical discussion.  One only has to turn the clock back to the period before the Iraq war and how these same Trump supporters who are now blaming Bush and neocons , treated those who opposed the conflict back then.

Interestingly, if we continue down this thuggish path to autocracy,  patriotism will come  to be defined as " do you or do you not support our overlord Trump "  .  The customs and border patrol agents have already gotten the message and non citizens entering the US are being questioned on their pro or anti Trump views.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top