Jump to content

Supreme Court Decision to Review Trump's Immigration Ban


Recommended Posts

At first glance, this is a really good decision.

1. The Supreme Court is saying that it wants to hear/review arguments in favour against. That's respectful of the crazy 9th circuit court of appeal because, well, it's part of the judicial system.

2. It states that the ban should only allow entry to a foreigner with a credible claim to bona fide ties to an American citizen. Otherwise, the President has the right to forbid entry. (I frankly think that this should be restricted to family ties and I suspect that the Court may decide ultimately this way.)

3. I really liked the 3 dissenting judges.

======

What people on the Left have to realize is that a foreigner does not have the same rights as an American citizen. We are not one world.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people on the right have to realize, and what you have completely ignored, is that this bill is unconstitutional due to its focus on a particular culture. Muslim's. I suspect those arguments will be heard and upheld in the fall, and this piece of junk will finally end up in the garbage for good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, August1991 said:

What people on the Left have to realize is that a foreigner does not have the same rights as an American citizen. We are not one world.

The people on the Left here certainly don't accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

What people on the right have to realize, and what you have completely ignored, is that this bill is unconstitutional due to its focus on a particular culture. Muslim's. I suspect those arguments will be heard and upheld in the fall, and this piece of junk will finally end up in the garbage for good. 

No, it focusses on certain countries that have a substandard vetting program due to the instability in the region, those countries just happen to have a large number of Muslims.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

At first glance, this is a really decision.

1. The Supreme Court is saying that it wants to hear/review arguments in favour against. That's respectful of the crazy 9th circuit court of appeal because, well, it's part of the judicial system.

2. It states that the ban should only allow entry to a foreigner with a credible claim to bona fide ties to an American citizen. Otherwise, the President has the right to forbid entry. (I frankly think that this should be restricted to family ties and I suspect that the Court may decide ultimately this way.)

3. I really liked the 3 dissenting judges.

======

What people on the Left have to realize is that a foreigner does not have the same rights as an American citizen. We are not one world.

Why are illegal criminal so-called refugees given the same rights that Canadians have? It's nuts. They committed a crime by entering Canada illegally, and should therefore have no rights. They should be just picked up at the border crossing points, or wherever, and taken away quickly to the nearest airport, buy them lunch, and then shipped back from whence they came. The hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars that would be saved this way would be enormous. Canada must send a clear message to these criminals that we will not tolerate border jumpers. But until the liberals are booted out of office, and a more Trump like conservative voted into the PM's chair, these criminal illegal activities will be tolerated and continue on by a government who apparently is more concerned about the rest of the world rather than Canada. Liberalism stinks.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Omni said:

What people on the right have to realize, and what you have completely ignored, is that this bill is unconstitutional due to its focus on a particular culture. Muslim's. I suspect those arguments will be heard and upheld in the fall, and this piece of junk will finally end up in the garbage for good. 

Without close ties to an American citizen, a foreigner (specifically, a foreign Muslim) does not have the right to enter America.

The US federal government can arbitrarily choose who enters America. Heck, private Americans choose who enters their gated communities.

=====

As Sheila Copps famously said about America's 3 Gs: Ghettos, Guns, Gated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the ban applies to people from those 6 countries, regardless of their religion. Meanwhile the rules have not changed for people from other ME countries, again regardless of their religion. Any reasonable person can see that it is NOT a Muslim ban.

Edited by OftenWrong
sp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's my understanding that the ban applies to people from those 6 countries, regardless of their religion. Meanwhile the rules have not changed for people from other ME countries, again regardless of their religion. Any reasonable person can see that it is NOT a Muslim ban.

Religion, or country, the US president has the right to forbid entry of foreigners.

If I were a foreigner about to apply for a US visa, or if I had a US visa in my passport, I would check to verify if I could enter America.

====

You can't enter Disneyland unless you've shown that that you have paid the fee; shown that you're part of the club.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's my understanding that the ban applies to people from those 6 countries, regardless of their religion. Meanwhile the rules have not changed for people from other ME countries, again regardless of their religion. Any reasonable person can see that it is NOT a Muslim ban.

Why does your buddy Trump call it that then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trump travel ban reinstated...U.S. Supreme Court knows the U.S. Constitution better than snowflakes.

Not reinstated at all. and will probably be completely thrown out when the SC hears arguments. They know the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Then if you're smart, and of course Trump isn't, you place your ban on the doubts surrounding that vetting process, and not on a specific religion.

I won't argue about whether Trump is smart or not, I merely note that the US Supreme Court confirmed that the US President has the right (with some limitations) to decide who enters the US.

Omni, as John Lennon once asked, Imagine. Imagine a world where anyone could travel wherever they wanted. Live wherever they choose. Pay taxes, or not. 

Edited by August1991
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, August1991 said:

I won't argue about whether Trump is smart or not, I merely note that the US Supreme Court confirmed that the US President has the right (with some limitations) to decide who enters the US.

Omni, as John Lennon once asked, Imagine. Imagine a world where anyone could travel wherever they wanted. Live wherever they choose. Pay taxes, or not. 

What the court said was:

 The court said the travel ban could not be imposed on anyone who had “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Omni said:

Not reinstated at all. and will probably be completely thrown out when the SC hears arguments. They know the constitution.

 

Reintstated biggly...let them go to Canada instead to attack the U.S. from across the border.

 

Quote

In saying they will take the case, the court partly endorsed the administration’s view that the president has vast powers to control who crosses the border. The court said the president’s powers to limit immigration “are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-case.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Reintstated biggly...let them go to Canada instead to attack the U.S. from across the border.

It was never instated in the first place. We'll see what the SC comes up with in October. Perhaps the watered down version might get some traction once the court applies constitutionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omni said:

It was never instated in the first place. We'll see what the SC comes up with in October. Perhaps the watered down version might get some traction once the court applies constitutionality.

Of course it was instated in the first place. I guess you're not keeping up, being as you are always just following opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

It was struck down by 2 circuit courts. Pay attention ffs.

It was instated nonetheless. Perhaps pay less attention to opinions, and more attention to actual facts, and one day you might be right about something. Something, or anything at all.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It was instated nonetheless. Perhaps pay less attention to opinions, and more attention to actual facts, and one day you might be right about something. Something, or anything at all.
 

No it was not instated. I understand you don't have a lot of legal background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

No it was not instated. I understand you don't have a lot of legal background.

I understand you are sadly ignorant of facts. The order was instated and remained in place for several days. Below is the history, please try to read it carefully. Suggest you read more than the first sentence this time.

January 27 -- President signs executive order
Trump issues the executive order banning entry for 90 days by citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

(Order is instated)

January 28 -- A federal judge in New York blocked part of the order.

January 29 -- A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked a part of the order in a case brought by lawyers for two lawful permanent residents who are college professors.

January 30 -- Senate Republicans squashed two moves by Democrats, including an attempt to begin debating a bill that would rescind the executive order. (Order still instated)

February 3 -- Temporary restraining order from Massachusetts isn't renewed. A federal judge in Boston declined to renew the temporary restraining order affecting Massachusetts that prohibited the detention or removal of foreign travelers legally authorized to come to the US. The January 29 temporary restraining order was set to expire on February 5. (Order still instated)

February 3 -- US District Court Judge James Robart blocked the ban nationwide.

A timeline of President Trump's travel ban

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...