Statue on limiting refugees (1 Viewer)

FBU4you

Very Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
78
Offline
Trump just read it on live tv, now I'm not a lawyer but it sounds very clear that he has the right to write an executive order to keep refugees out. What say you?
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,552
Reaction score
18,571
Offline
Trump just read it on live tv, now I'm not a lawyer but it sounds very clear that he has the right to write an executive order to keep refugees out. What say you?
It does not mean he can ignore the constitution. There can be no religious test.

Also the INA limits discrimination based on national origin. The wording of his EO violated this limit. It can be argued that he could ignore this limitation if there is a compelling reason, but there hasn't been a good case made that there is a compelling reason. No reason to think that the current vetting methods are inadequate.
 

superlaser

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
1,984
Offline
It does not mean he can ignore the constitution. There can be no religious test.

Also the INA limits discrimination based on national origin. The wording of his EO violated this limit. It can be argued that he could ignore this limitation if there is a compelling reason, but there hasn't been a good case made that there is a compelling reason. No reason to think that the current vetting methods are inadequate.
This is why I find it completely impossible to give him the benefit of a doubt regarding the travel ban. It would be incredibly simple for him to silence most of his critics by simply explaining what the difference is between the current vetting and 'extreme' vetting.
Instead, he dodges and distracts by yelling at reporters and holding campaign rally's a month into his term.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,812
Offline
It does not mean he can ignore the constitution. There can be no religious test.

Also the INA limits discrimination based on national origin. The wording of his EO violated this limit. It can be argued that he could ignore this limitation if there is a compelling reason, but there hasn't been a good case made that there is a compelling reason. No reason to think that the current vetting methods are inadequate.
Both of these are clear. Congress could vote to change the latter, but the former is clear in its application to all who seek citizenship. There's no clear reference to modern immigration law in the constitution, but the naturalization clause certainly says that we can't block attempts to become citizens based on religion and by force of logic that we can't apply religious tests to our own laws even when they apply to those who are not citizens.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
32,043
Reaction score
18,363
Age
48
Location
Houston
Online
I think people should read the 9th Circuits decision. It was really clear and even laid out how it could be legal, which actual lawyers instead of Bannon are using to craft the EO.

He knows it was poorly written but like most things his ego and insecurity won't allow him to have any dignity and let it go. He's already taking the steps to correct his error, but admitting errors is something adults do.
 
OP

FBU4you

Very Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
78
Offline
But the 9th circus failed to even look at this:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952. Before this Act, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text.

Now I am not a lawyer and as pointed out so kindly can't even spell very good. But I can read and it seems that gives him every Roth to do as other presidents including Obama have done in issuing an executive order to limit immigration.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,344
Reaction score
18,196
Offline
It's not the halt of immigration, it's the religious test. That's the part that is objectionable. When members of one religion from a country are allowed, but a different religion is banned, based solely on their religious faith and nothing else, it goes against the constitution, as well as common decency. What's so hard about that? Honest question.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,552
Reaction score
18,571
Offline
But the 9th circus failed to even look at this:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952. Before this Act, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text.

Now I am not a lawyer and as pointed out so kindly can't even spell very good. But I can read and it seems that gives him every Roth to do as other presidents including Obama have done in issuing an executive order to limit immigration.
INA of 1965 limits discrimination based by on national origin.

The Obama and carter examples are not comparable because they didn't use a persons national origin as the basis for the travel restriction.

It's been explained in more detail in about 5 other threads.
 
OP

FBU4you

Very Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
78
Offline
INA of 1965 limits discrimination based by on national origin.

The Obama and carter examples are not comparable because they didn't use a persons national origin as the basis for the travel restriction.

It's been explained in more detail in about 5 other threads.
Wrong. Carter was ver specific in limiting any Iranian residents, Obama limited people from the same seven countries on the list Trump used.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,552
Reaction score
18,571
Offline
No that's not what the Statue of Liberty was about. The base however does.
Yea in the original version she was flipping Europe the bird.

They decided the torch was more Politically correct.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,552
Reaction score
18,571
Offline
Wrong. Carter was ver specific in limiting any Iranian residents, Obama limited people from the same seven countries on the list Trump used.
Yes but someone born in Iran who lived in the U.K. Was unaffected.

Country of residence and national origin are not the same thing.

He just needs to reword it and he can do 95% of what he is trying to do.
 
OP

FBU4you

Very Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
78
Offline
It's not the halt of immigration, it's the religious test. That's the part that is objectionable. When members of one religion from a country are allowed, but a different religion is banned, based solely on their religious faith and nothing else, it goes against the constitution, as well as common decency. What's so hard about that? Honest question.
No I agree with that part no doubt. I don't think it should be based on religion but I have no problem with a pause on immigration from certain parts of the world. The first job of government is to protect the people.
 

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,594
Reaction score
15,318
Location
Denver
Offline
No I agree with that part no doubt. I don't think it should be based on religion but I have no problem with a pause on immigration from certain parts of the world. The first job of government is to protect the people.
Right.

Protect the people from the threat of terrorist attack from seven countries whose citizens have never killed Americans on U.S. soil.

Meanwhile, your party is preparing plans to gut Medicaid and Obamacare, to remove protection for Americans from other risks that have a fairly high probability of occurring, like getting serious illnesses or injuries they can't afford to have without adequate insurance.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom