ACLU Wins - Federal Judge Just Issued A Stay Against Trump's Muslim Ban

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant. Nor was "any ties" meant even to be part of a court order. That would be immensely silly. See post#317.

- - - Updated - - -

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

A rewritten EO does not have to be "drastically rewritten" to adhere to the specific remarks in the decision by the 9th Circuit. Although, a rewritten EO may be susceptible to other legal challenges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten." ETA: I also wrote the EO is wrong by design. So, he's not really fixing "it" if it can even be written which I am not so sure it can be. He might very well have to write a NEW executive order with a different design, i.e., one with a design to be consitutional.

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant.

Appearances can be and are deceiving. I didn't take the phrase "any ties" out of context.

Yeah, you did.

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten."

Regardless, the EO can be rewritten in such a manner as to not constitute as "drastically" different in scope while adhering to the 9th's decision.

A new order can be written that is consistent with the Constitution or amendments can be made to the current EO that make the EO more consistent with the Constitution. The DESIGN of the order has to be changed. The design had a drastic scope problem.

...as I pointed out on Feb 1st.

ETA: Let's review what I recently wrote which was something like "I mildly object to the words "Trump can fix it'." It's mostly the words fix and it. What exactly does "it"--his Muslim ban intentions--his wanting to ban foreign persons from 5 Muslim-majority countries? He did indeed want to ban people even with visas etc. What does it mean to "fix" something? Typically, the design and intent are not what is being fixed, it's that there was something unintended in the implementation, like a bug. I mean, imagine there was a pharmaceutical company that made a depression drug called ProLoftiPro and they specifically designed it to not only treat depression but at the same time to give men erections. So somehow it gets released to the public under objection by the public but doctors start prescribing and a million people take the drug, the men getting erections at inopportune times for hours. Taking pieces of the formulation of ProLoftiPro, while removing some pieces and adding others wouldn't really be called "fixing ProLoftiPro," it'd be a new drug with a new design and intent. "Fixing" something would be more like this example: Let's suppose some 5% of the time when we click the vBulletin button called "Save" it doesn't work. It's an UNINTENDED problem not by design. So, vBulletin works on a "bug fix" and solves the issue. I am not going to respond further than this on the issue of semantics because it's not that important, thus my "mild" objection. But I do think it's important to point out that Trump's intentions and design are Unconstitutional.

 

[Elixir]

Regardless, the EO can be rewritten in such a manner as to not constitute as "drastically" different in scope.

Yes it can. But that cannot hide the stated intent.

To whatever extent the coming re-write furthers that intent, there will be an increase in the resistance movement. By 2018 it is possible that there could an ACTUAL draining of "The Swamp", now inhabited mostly by billionaires and multi-millionaires.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes it can. But that cannot hide the stated intent.

To whatever extent the coming re-write furthers that intent, there will be an increase in the resistance movement. By 2018 it is possible that there could an ACTUAL draining of "The Swamp", now inhabited mostly by billionaires and multi-millionaires.

Do you mean the Women's March with Angela Davies as one of the communists who has the co chair? In England one of the nut-ball organisations using this march for publicity is the English Prostitute's Collective. What' that got to do with US immigration policies. They only want to legalise prostitution in England. That a bit 'Monty Python.' There are other groups and the communist movements

The US has a right to restrict or refuse visas as it sees fit. Refusing visas it issued is a another reason.

The election is over. The Communists and their marionettes may not agree but look at the UK. The Tories got the majority of seats with 36.1% of the vote. We didn't get riots or demonstrations with people wearing pussy hats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4za8Ts-7YU

 

[James Madison]

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant. Nor was "any ties" meant even to be part of a court order. That would be immensely silly. See post#317.

- - - Updated - - -

I mildly object to the phrase "Trump can fix it." First, the design of the EO was wrong and therefore it was wrong by design and the design was intentional. Second, it's a thing that was implemented against many people already. One can neither go back in time to undo the damage to the people it harmed nor can one call the EO the same "it" when a new EO is made that is drastically different in scope.

A rewritten EO does not have to be "drastically rewritten" to adhere to the specific remarks in the decision by the 9th Circuit. Although, a rewritten EO may be susceptible to other legal challenges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten." ETA: I also wrote the EO is wrong by design. So, he's not really fixing "it" if it can even be written which I am not so sure it can be. He might very well have to write a NEW executive order with a different design, i.e., one with a design to be consitutional.

It would appear James is taking "any ties" out of context. We all know what is meant.

Appearances can be and are deceiving. I didn't take the phrase "any ties" out of context.

Yeah, you did.

I wrote "drastically different in scope," not "drastically rewritten."

Regardless, the EO can be rewritten in such a manner as to not constitute as "drastically" different in scope while adhering to the 9th's decision.

A new order can be written that is consistent with the Constitution or amendments can be made to the current EO that make the EO more consistent with the Constitution. The DESIGN of the order has to be changed. The design had a drastic scope problem.

...as I pointed out on Feb 1st.

The DESIGN of the order has to be changed. The design had a drastic scope problem.

You'll have to be more specific. I think I know what you are saying and referring to but I do not want to speculate.

Yeah, you did.

No.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The US has a right to restrict or refuse visas as it sees fit. Refusing visas it issued is a another reason.

Our Constitution sets limits on how we can restrict immigration. This is what this argument is about.

The election is over. The Communists and their marionettes may not agree but look at the UK. The Tories got the majority of seats with 36.1% of the vote. We didn't get riots or demonstrations with people wearing pussy hats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4za8Ts-7YU

Did you elect a white supremacist and a Christofascist?

 

[repoman]

Our Constitution sets limits on how we can restrict immigration. This is what this argument is about.

The election is over. The Communists and their marionettes may not agree but look at the UK. The Tories got the majority of seats with 36.1% of the vote. We didn't get riots or demonstrations with people wearing pussy hats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4za8Ts-7YU

Did you elect a white supremacist and a Christofascist?

you mean targeted restriction of immigration. I doubt if there was a raw number with no racial/religion/country quota set by the president (unless congress had a say by making a law) that there could be a recourse. Even if it was zero people/year or 5 million/year.

But on the silly side of 5 million immigrants a year besides being ludicrous, who would have standing to have a court tell the president that it must be lower than that? Or the standing to appeal to a court to tell president that zero immigrants is too little.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Our Constitution sets limits on how we can restrict immigration. This is what this argument is about.

The election is over. The Communists and their marionettes may not agree but look at the UK. The Tories got the majority of seats with 36.1% of the vote. We didn't get riots or demonstrations with people wearing pussy hats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4za8Ts-7YU

Did you elect a white supremacist and a Christofascist?

Christofascist. That'a good one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes a point about women's right which are not promoted by the Women's march (which illustrated my earlier points). I thought I'd throw that into the mix. Frame 57 onwards.

 

[laughing dog]

To whatever extent the coming re-write furthers that intent, there will be an increase in the resistance movement. By 2018 it is possible that there could an ACTUAL draining of "The Swamp", now inhabited mostly by billionaires and multi-millionaires.

Do you mean the Women's March with Angela Davies as one of the communists who has the co chair? In England one of the nut-ball organisations using this march for publicity is the English Prostitute's Collective. What' that got to do with US immigration policies. They only want to legalise prostitution in England. That a bit 'Monty Python.' There are other groups and the communist movements

The US has a right to restrict or refuse visas as it sees fit. Refusing visas it issued is a another reason.

The election is over. The Communists and their marionettes may not agree but look at the UK. The Tories got the majority of seats with 36.1% of the vote. We didn't get riots or demonstrations with people wearing pussy hats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4za8Ts-7YU

Please reinforce your tinfoil. Any argument that trots out Angela Davis as some sort of shibboleth or threat to society cannot be taken seriously.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Do you mean the Women's March with Angela Davies as one of the communists who has the co chair? In England one of the nut-ball organisations using this march for publicity is the English Prostitute's Collective. What' that got to do with US immigration policies. They only want to legalise prostitution in England. That a bit 'Monty Python.' There are other groups and the communist movements

The US has a right to restrict or refuse visas as it sees fit. Refusing visas it issued is a another reason.

The election is over. The Communists and their marionettes may not agree but look at the UK. The Tories got the majority of seats with 36.1% of the vote. We didn't get riots or demonstrations with people wearing pussy hats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4za8Ts-7YU

Please reinforce your tinfoil. Any argument that trots out Angela Davis as some sort of shibboleth or threat to society cannot be taken seriously.

She's on the Women's March Website, so she's already been trotted out so I'm just the humble postman.
However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

 

[laughing dog]

Please reinforce your tinfoil. Any argument that trots out Angela Davis as some sort of shibboleth or threat to society cannot be taken seriously.

She's on the Women's March Website, so she's already been trotted out so I'm just the humble postman.

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

 

[whichphilosophy]

She's on the Women's March Website, so she's already been trotted out so I'm just the humble postman.

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post). She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It looks like V Bulletin is not grabbing the relevant quote. For those playing at home James is responding to this:

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration-law professor at Cornell University, said the administration needs to make clear that the only people barred from entry are those who don’t have prior connections to the country.

“If they don’t have any ties to the United States, the government would have a good argument that they don’t have any constitutional rights,” he said.

The phrase "any ties" may be too broad and ambiguous. The Supreme Court decisions certainly do not rely upon such a broad and ambiguous principle. The prior SCOTUS decisions rely upon a more definite and concrete factual assessment. Indeed, the relevant language from the 9th decision does not rely upon an "any ties" standard.

I agree. "Any ties" could mean you have an uncle who owns a Nebraska coffee house. That alone does not give you a right to ever the country.

I'm jumping to the UK
The ban refused pre-approved (Visa, Green Card etc) which caused needless problems affecting human rights of people stranded etc.
Having an uncle as you say would be a plus point in the UK.

Other things like joining a library and utility bills, tax, rent, signing on with a Doctor do help.Having a disability gives priority for housing which is in short supply.

 

[bilby]

The UK should seal its borders except for Asylum seekers tourists and people with work co entering the proper way.

What you are ignoring is that the UK needs immigration to sustain its economy. EU immigrants without a job can be deported after 3 months according to EU law. That this never happens is a massive failure from the UK Government, not helped by the ridiculous situation that the UK doesn't even register where its residents live. With the right processes and procedures EU immigration could be reduced to the level that the market needs, without much in the way of business-costly red tape. Immigration would all by itself settle on the right level.

In the future, businesses will still need the workers, they are simply not there in the country so they will have to come from outside. There will be regulations and procedures forced on businesses to satisfy the public that British workers won't be disadvantaged - but since these British workers aren't there to begin with, all this extra overhead will do is make British businesses less competitive. Many will go to the wall - fruit and vegetable producers for instance, who will simply cease to exist without a readily available immigrant workforce.

Your so-called solution won't work - in practice, immigration will hardly go down, and where it does, businesses and therefore the British economy will suffer.

The UK is running into debt, with record waiting times in hospitals and now the government has made further cuts in council spending while councils are now going to raise the council tax even higher.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. People with work, means people with a work contract. Added to this I would say guaranteed a minimum wage per the type of job. So the UK could exercise its right to take in what it needs.

The economy is going downhill, where young people of today will be worse off than their parents in real terms. Also 80% young people have ruled out the idea of ever buying a house due to a lack of construction.

Eu Migrants will come into the UK and have 3 months to find a job. Then they will get a job seeker's allowance for up to 91 days.
However, I couldn't find any home office records of any being deported. There is very little in the way of deportations except a few Roma beggars now and again who get the fare back home and then come back again.

Migrantwatch an all party Watchdog claims that overall Immigration cost the tax payer

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/347

. Between 1995 and 2011 the fiscal cost of migrants in the UK was at least £115 billion and possibly as much as £160 billion according to a report from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration headed by Professor Christian Dustmann at University College, London. The report found that migrants in the UK were a fiscal cost in every year examined.[1]

Long Term immigrants tend to be concerned about new immigration (Published 2014).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mmigration-as-UK-born-people-study-shows.html

There are benefits from migration but there are disadvantages.

The U.K. Government's budget problems are entirely due to the insane and purely ideological policy of austerity.

The only connection with immigration is that immigrants make a good scapegoat for the problems that are in fact due to a broken policy idea that the government refuses to admit is causing the very problems it is supposed to fix.

One Brexit is done, the immigrants have been rounded up and deported, and the British stand proud and isolated on their little dreary islands, the same problems will still exist (unless by some miracle the electorate wake up to themselves and vote in a government that doesn't think a national budget needs the same rules as a household budget).

Governments that get themselves into economic woes through dogmatic application of broken policies based on ideology rather than evidence always find a scapegoat, and it's usually foreigners of one variety or another. Immigrants, members of a particular minority religion, neighbouring countries - anyone is to be blamed as long as it's not the government themselves.

This isn't new. We've seen it many, many times. But the uneducated masses invariably fall for it.

The strongest correlation of census characteristics with the 'Leave' vote was low educational attainment. Only the dumb people are swallowing this horseshit; but sadly, they are sufficiently numerous as to doom us all.

Yet again.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UK is running into debt, with record waiting times in hospitals and now the government has made further cuts in council spending while councils are now going to raise the council tax even higher.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. People with work, means people with a work contract. Added to this I would say guaranteed a minimum wage per the type of job. So the UK could exercise its right to take in what it needs.

The economy is going downhill, where young people of today will be worse off than their parents in real terms. Also 80% young people have ruled out the idea of ever buying a house due to a lack of construction.

Eu Migrants will come into the UK and have 3 months to find a job. Then they will get a job seeker's allowance for up to 91 days.
However, I couldn't find any home office records of any being deported. There is very little in the way of deportations except a few Roma beggars now and again who get the fare back home and then come back again.

Migrantwatch an all party Watchdog claims that overall Immigration cost the tax payer

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/347

. Between 1995 and 2011 the fiscal cost of migrants in the UK was at least £115 billion and possibly as much as £160 billion according to a report from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration headed by Professor Christian Dustmann at University College, London. The report found that migrants in the UK were a fiscal cost in every year examined.[1]

Long Term immigrants tend to be concerned about new immigration (Published 2014).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mmigration-as-UK-born-people-study-shows.html

There are benefits from migration but there are disadvantages.

The U.K. Government's budget problems are entirely due to the insane and purely ideological policy of austerity.

The only connection with immigration is that immigrants make a good scapegoat for the problems that are in fact due to a broken policy idea that the government refuses to admit is causing the very problems it is supposed to fix.

One Brexit is done, the immigrants have been rounded up and deported, and the British stand proud and isolated on their little dreary islands, the same problems will still exist (unless by some miracle the electorate wake up to themselves and vote in a government that doesn't think a national budget needs the same rules as a household budget).

Governments that get themselves into economic woes through dogmatic application of broken policies based on ideology rather than evidence always find a scapegoat, and it's usually foreigners of one variety or another. Immigrants, members of a particular minority religion, neighbouring countries - anyone is to be blamed as long as it's not the government themselves.

This isn't new. We've seen it many, many times. But the uneducated masses invariably fall for it.

The strongest correlation of census characteristics with the 'Leave' vote was low educational attainment. Only the dumb people are swallowing this horseshit; but sadly, they are sufficiently numerous as to doom us all.

Yet again.

Austerity. This is the bankster policy that controls the EU

Immigrants: We don’t have the room or infrastructure anymore. We can take some plus refugees.

Brexit will take at least 5 years. Governments have promised this for years nothing happened. I don’t believe that the current government if in power after 5 years will do anything

Government do get into problems but the research shows immigration overall is a deficit. Many immigrants are a benefit.
The leave vote was in part due to discontent with the EU, and for us to take control over our own courts again. Immigration was a large factor also but I doubt if the Tories will do anything about it.

When she was Home Secretary she failed to take any action on the levels of immigration.
So if you know any illegal immigrants tell them there is still hope.

 

[laughing dog]

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post).

You did not quote anything, so your response is junk mail. The Women's march has nothing to do with the OP, so both your responses are junk mail.

She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

There was no evidence of her "radical agenda" at the march, so your conspiracy theory nonsense is also junk mail.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post). She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

Mr. Sleeping with Russia pants is the one with the radical agenda. You are the one with the actual agenda, wanting the US to allow Russia free reign around it. Who do you think you are kidding?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post).

You did not quote anything, so your response is junk mail. The Women's march has nothing to do with the OP, so both your responses are junk mail.

She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

There was no evidence of her "radical agenda" at the march, so your conspiracy theory nonsense is also junk mail.

Here is the reference:
https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/

Here
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/angela-davis-lost-her-mind-over-obama

Black Freedom Movement era icon Angela Davis tells people that Barack Obama “identifies with the Black radical tradition” – “as if everything he has written, said and done in national politics has not been a repudiation of the Black radical tradition.” In doing so, Prof. Davis “is repudiating herself, her history, her comrades – all in a foolish attempt to artificially graft a totally unworthy Barack Obama onto a place he not only does not belong, but most profoundly does not want to be.”

Angela Davis Lost Her Mind Over Obama

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

“Angela Davis says that Barack Obama is a man who identifies with the Black radical tradition.”

 

[whichphilosophy]

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post). She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

Mr. Sleeping with Russia pants is the one with the radical agenda. You are the one with the actual agenda, wanting the US to allow Russia free reign around it. Who do you think you are kidding?

Now that sounds sexy but he hasn't tried them on.
There's nothing wrong with the US cooperating with Russia especially on Global terrorism.
It moved its missiles out of Cuba 1961 so it's time to get over it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post). She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

Mr. Sleeping with Russia pants is the one with the radical agenda. You are the one with the actual agenda, wanting the US to allow Russia free reign around it. Who do you think you are kidding?

Now that sounds sexy but he hasn't tried them on.
There's nothing wrong with the US cooperating with Russia especially on Global terrorism.
It moved its missiles out of Cuba 1961 so it's time to get over it.

Uh yeah, Russia wants to "cooperate" with us.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Then stop delivering junk mail.

However if anyone can whip up a mob into a froth, Angela's your lady. I'm sure this will bring back nostalgic recollections of her old drum thumping days.

This is more compelling evidence of your need to reinforce your tinfoil.

This is really the crafting in of numerous legitimate concerns with a general disgruntlement with the US elections.

Duh.

Quoting what's on the women's march isn't junk mail per definition (e.g. unsolicited advertising received through the mail or post). She made some good points in the 1960s and is still a good speaker and charismatic but that doesn't alter the radical agenda she has.

Mr. Sleeping with Russia pants is the one with the radical agenda. You are the one with the actual agenda, wanting the US to allow Russia free reign around it. Who do you think you are kidding?

Now that sounds sexy but he hasn't tried them on.
There's nothing wrong with the US cooperating with Russia especially on Global terrorism.
It moved its missiles out of Cuba 1961 so it's time to get over it.

Uh yeah, Russia wants to "cooperate" with us.

It does even though it won't stop the NSA hacking it (or anyone else like Germany) and it won't stop the Russians from trying to Hack everything.