A Trump travel ban?
Excellent! Ban him from traveling outside Washington D.C.!
Excellent! Ban him from traveling outside Washington D.C.!
Just limit him to the number of vacations Obama took. Trump was very critical of that number. Should be good enough for him.A Trump travel ban?
Excellent! Ban him from traveling outside Washington D.C.!
Oh yeah!!!! But Trump works...I mean Twerks...I mean Tweets into the wee hours of the night. That should count for something.Just limit him to the number of vacations Obama took. Trump was very critical of that number. Should be good enough for him.A Trump travel ban?
Excellent! Ban him from traveling outside Washington D.C.!
And he'll probably reach it in, what, June?
Not with Kimmel, Colbert, Daly, Fallon also working steady.Oh yeah!!!! But Trump works...I mean Twerks...I mean Tweets into the wee hours of the night. That should count for something.Just limit him to the number of vacations Obama took. Trump was very critical of that number. Should be good enough for him.
And he'll probably reach it in, what, June?
The US or any other sovereign state has a right to ban who it wants and invite who it wants. My understanding is that those already with visas and green cards may come.
The US or any other sovereign state has a right to ban who it wants and invite who it wants. My understanding is that those already with visas and green cards may come.
You are not correct that the US has the right to ban who it wants. There are international treaties, notably the Geneva Convention, that guarantees refugees of war-torn nations asylum in participating countries, of which we are one.
You are not correct that the US has the right to ban who it wants. There are international treaties, notably the Geneva Convention, that guarantees refugees of war-torn nations asylum in participating countries, of which we are one.
There is also a law passed in 1965 the US that prevents banning people (or more accurately, limiting their their entry by quota) based on their country of origin. The statute that gives the president unilateral authority to prevent people from entering the country was enacted earlier than this law, and some consider it to be usurped by it, although it was never officially overturned.
Funny, the legislature in North Carolina had a similar idea. That had to be one of the most impeachable things the Legislature could ever do... of course, no recourse.There is also a law passed in 1965 the US that prevents banning people (or more accurately, limiting their their entry by quota) based on their country of origin. The statute that gives the president unilateral authority to prevent people from entering the country was enacted earlier than this law, and some consider it to be usurped by it, although it was never officially overturned.
Next time a sociopathic ignoramus is elected to the presidency, the outgoing president needs to spend some time purging statutes that overly empower the POTUS...
But the horse is already out of the barn. At this point I only hope there IS another election.
Yeah, go figure. The North Carolina Legislature passing illegal restrictions against the other party's Governor after losing an election, will suffer no harm once overturned... and it's 39 protestors that get arrested.article said:Hundreds of protesters chanting “power grab” filled the halls of the state capitol in Raleigh during the legislative sessions yesterday. Thirty-nine of them were arrested.
You are not correct that the US has the right to ban who it wants. There are international treaties, notably the Geneva Convention, that guarantees refugees of war-torn nations asylum in participating countries, of which we are one.
There is also a law passed in 1965 the US that prevents banning people (or more accurately, limiting their their entry by quota) based on their country of origin. The statute that gives the president unilateral authority to prevent people from entering the country was enacted earlier than this law, and some consider it to be usurped by it, although it was never officially overturned.
Funny, the legislature in North Carolina had a similar idea. That had to be one of the most impeachable things the Legislature could ever do... of course, no recourse.Next time a sociopathic ignoramus is elected to the presidency, the outgoing president needs to spend some time purging statutes that overly empower the POTUS...
But the horse is already out of the barn. At this point I only hope there IS another election.
I know several N Carolinians who are beyond pissed about that... if it's a template for future republican tactics, we need to see some prosecutions for sedition or treason.article said:Hundreds of protesters chanting “power grab” filled the halls of the state capitol in Raleigh during the legislative sessions yesterday. Thirty-nine of them were arrested.Yeah, go figure. The North Carolina Legislature passing illegal restrictions against the other party's Governor after losing an election, will suffer no harm once overturned... and it's 39 protestors that get arrested.
Democracy in our nation could be very well doomed. The Republicans are seeing to it.
You are not correct that the US has the right to ban who it wants. There are international treaties, notably the Geneva Convention, that guarantees refugees of war-torn nations asylum in participating countries, of which we are one.
There is also a law passed in 1965 the US that prevents banning people (or more accurately, limiting their their entry by quota) based on their country of origin. The statute that gives the president unilateral authority to prevent people from entering the country was enacted earlier than this law, and some consider it to be usurped by it, although it was never officially overturned.
There is also a law passed in 1965 the US that prevents banning people (or more accurately, limiting their their entry by quota) based on their country of origin. The statute that gives the president unilateral authority to prevent people from entering the country was enacted earlier than this law, and some consider it to be usurped by it, although it was never officially overturned.
yes, good point.. .also, it was my understanding (correct me if wrong, please), that the later statue that gives that power to the President is intended for WARTIME only. that is, during officially declared states of war, so that enemies we are embattled with cannot just walk in.