• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump Issues New Travel Ban

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Well, Trump's strong and assertive "See you in court" in response to his previous travel ban getting overturned has turned out to be less strong and assertive than he implied it would be, since he's not looking to have the ruling vacated now, but just made a whole new ban instead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-travel-ban-revised-1.4011197

It looks like Iraq is off the list now, which is surprising because I believe that leaves us open to more attacks by the Bowling Green people, but the rest are still in there.

Most surprisingly, the ban is still for 90 days. Given that those 90 days were there in order to do a security review for the people from those countries, shouldn't it be a 60 day or so ban now? Not having the order in place didn't affect their starting this security review, so they should be about a third of the way through it now.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Iraq is off the list, and Green Carders are as well. So does this give him enough cover the courts won't intervene again?
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,284
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Well, Trump's strong and assertive "See you in court" in response to his previous travel ban getting overturned has turned out to be less strong and assertive than he implied it would be, since he's not looking to have the ruling vacated now, but just made a whole new ban instead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-travel-ban-revised-1.4011197

It looks like Iraq is off the list now, which is surprising because I believe that leaves us open to more attacks by the Bowling Green people, but the rest are still in there.

Most surprisingly, the ban is still for 90 days. Given that those 90 days were there in order to do a security review for the people from those countries, shouldn't it be a 60 day or so ban now? Not having the order in place didn't affect their starting this security review, so they should be about a third of the way through it now.

That's under the assumption that they were seriously undertaking a security review, right?
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
That's under the assumption that they were seriously undertaking a security review, right?

Well, everybody knows that they're not doing a security review. What they are doing is pretending that they're doing a security review. They could at least be consistent with their lie - that's just manners.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
link said:
the new order will not go into effect until March 16

Thank GOD! Starting on 3/17, the awful killings and carnage that have befallen us since the courts told Cheato to STFU, will STOP!
Remember Bowling Green!
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
link said:
the new order will not go into effect until March 16

Thank GOD! Starting on 3/17, the awful killings and carnage that have befallen us since the courts told Cheato to STFU, will STOP!
Remember Bowling Green!

Fucking hell, I missed that bit.

Why the hell is he telling the terrorists his plans in advance? I thought that was a stupid thing to do. Now they all know to get into the country and blow things up right away, before this absolutely superb plan to destroy them (seriously, it's just great) goes into effect.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Iraq is off the list, and Green Carders are as well. So does this give him enough cover the courts won't intervene again?


No, but a third change you didn't list here is that there is no religious test in this order. The previous one gave preferential treatment to Christians attempting to enter the country. That has been removed, avoiding the constitutional issue relating to the First Amendment.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Iraq is off the list, and Green Carders are as well. So does this give him enough cover the courts won't intervene again?


No, but a third change you didn't list here is that there is no religious test in this order. The previous one gave preferential treatment to Christians attempting to enter the country. That has been removed, avoiding the constitutional issue relating to the First Amendment.
Ah, that'll help their case. Though, the preferential treatment was supposed to take place after the ban expired and wasn't in place immediately.

Curious, it appears that nations where people have come from that did attack our nation are still not on the list. I wonder the reason for that oversight. *shifty eyes*
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Wasn't at least part of the problem that they couldn't explain any actual need for the ban?
Have they justified a need this time?
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Wasn't at least part of the problem that they couldn't explain any actual need for the ban?
Have they justified a need this time?

Duh. It's right there in the name. They're doing it to prevent foreign terrorists from entering the US.

IIRC, the lack of justification thing was in reference to the fact that they needed a reason for the courts to ignore all of the other constitutional violations in the last not-a-ban. The President would have been able to ignore all of those violations if there had been a legitimate national security reason for him to ignore them. Without those violations, the court doesn't have any standing to require a justification from the President's exercising his powers.

Then again, that was like eight major scandals ago, so it's tough to remember all the details.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No, the original ban was found to be religiously motivated and unconstitutional. It was thrown out right on the surface.
This ban may lack the obvious unconstitutional favoring of a religion, but that does not mean that it will pass all other scrutiny (like if evidence that such a ban is needed, is, well, needed)

- - - Updated - - -

Then again, that was like eight major scandals ago, so it's tough to remember all the details.

so you're saying their strategy is working on you, then?
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
so you're saying their strategy is working on you, then?

I'm not an American, so Trump's actions only affect me on a theoretical and entertainment level, so there's no value in my bothering to pay that much attention.

It's if it's working on you that there's a problem.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
so you're saying their strategy is working on you, then?

I'm not an American, so Trump's actions only affect me on a theoretical and entertainment level, so there's no value in my bothering to pay that much attention.

It's if it's working on you that there's a problem.

If what is working on me? I can't remember.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,284
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
That's under the assumption that they were seriously undertaking a security review, right?

Well, everybody knows that they're not doing a security review. What they are doing is pretending that they're doing a security review. They could at least be consistent with their lie - that's just manners.


Trump's audience (and don't pretend that what he's doing isn't a performance) doesn't care about details like that.
 

hurtinbuckaroo

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
4,238
Location
Delaware, USA
Basic Beliefs
laissez le bon temps rouler
Well, everybody knows that they're not doing a security review. What they are doing is pretending that they're doing a security review. They could at least be consistent with their lie - that's just manners.


Trump's audience (and don't pretend that what he's doing isn't a performance) doesn't care about details like that.

Until his approval rating dips below 40%, I'll argue that they don't care what he does short of all-out nuclear war. And it's definitely a performance; he's a game show host, not a President.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,278
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
link said:
the new order will not go into effect until March 16

Thank GOD! Starting on 3/17, the awful killings and carnage that have befallen us since the courts told Cheato to STFU, will STOP!
Remember Bowling Green!

St Patrick's Day. Are the Irish included on the list of banned nationalities? Or are they exempt due to their having never engaged in religious sectarian terrorism?

Perhaps the unionists are allowed in; after all, there was no fictional massacre at Bowling Orange.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Thank GOD! Starting on 3/17, the awful killings and carnage that have befallen us since the courts told Cheato to STFU, will STOP!
Remember Bowling Green!

St Patrick's Day. Are the Irish included on the list of banned nationalities? Or are they exempt due to their having never engaged in religious sectarian terrorism?

You mean those ERA bombings? :D
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,006
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Wash. AG declares victory after Trump signs new travel order | KREM.com

"The President has capitulated on numerous key provisions that we contested in court about a month ago. So, on those key provisions, this is a very significant victory for the people of the State of Washington," said Ferguson in a Monday press conference.

A federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide hold on the order. His ruling was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ferguson pointed out that after the 9th Circuit's ruling, the President vowed on Twitter to fight the decision in court.

"It bears pointing out that the administration, since that tweet, has done everything in its power to avoid seeing anyone in court when it comes to the original executive order," said Ferguson, saying the order was illegal and unconstitutional. "The President was essentially afraid to see us in court because he knew he would lose again."

Somebody's very tiny twitter fingers must be twitching.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,006
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
link said:
the new order will not go into effect until March 16

Thank GOD! Starting on 3/17, the awful killings and carnage that have befallen us since the courts told Cheato to STFU, will STOP!
Remember Bowling Green!

Oh fuck, that's over a week away.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!
5:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017


 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Thank GOD! Starting on 3/17, the awful killings and carnage that have befallen us since the courts told Cheato to STFU, will STOP!
Remember Bowling Green!

Oh fuck, that's over a week away.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!
5:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017


I don't think I'm resorting to hyperbole when I say "We are all going to die!"
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
The government should kick out Rasmea Yousef Odeh who was convicted of a terrorist attack who was jailed in Israel for 10 years. She was convicted on immigration Fraud in November 2014, for not declaring this conviction. She was released on a bond pending sentencing on 13 February 2015. She's one of the organisers of the Women's march.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmea_Odeh
Odeh was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison on March 12, 2015, stripped of her US citizenship, and will be deported from the United States to Jordan once she is done serving her time.[15][16][17][17][18] She is free on bail while she appeals.[15] Her conviction was vacated by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and sent back to the District Court in February 2016.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,278
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The government should kick out Rasmea Yousef Odeh who was convicted of a terrorist attack who was jailed in Israel for 10 years. She was convicted on immigration Fraud in November 2014, for not declaring this conviction. She was released on a bond pending sentencing on 13 February 2015. She's one of the organisers of the Women's march.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same...
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
Okay, real talk for a second here. If the pre-inauguration comments about banning Muslims, the stuff Giuliani said, and the fact that a Muslim ban is verbatim literally still on his fucking website were all fair game for the court case before, how is anything different now? Can't they still point to that stuff, as well as the DHS report that the travel ban isn't needed, and say this is no better than the first EO? It doesn't have a religious exemption in the text anymore, but it still bans people based on their nationality, which was made explicitly illegal in 1965. The only recourse Trump has is to fall back on executive privilege, and that just gets him back to having to explain why we need this EO when the experts disagree and he's on record saying he wants to ban Muslim immigration.

It's almost as if this is all political theatre intended to distract the media from some other looming issue that has recently been in the public eye.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Okay, real talk for a second here. If the pre-inauguration comments about banning Muslims, the stuff Giuliani said, and the fact that a Muslim ban is verbatim literally still on his fucking website were all fair game for the court case before, how is anything different now? Can't they still point to that stuff, as well as the DHS report that the travel ban isn't needed, and say this is no better than the first EO? It doesn't have a religious exemption in the text anymore, but it still bans people based on their nationality, which was made explicitly illegal in 1965. The only recourse Trump has is to fall back on executive privilege, and that just gets him back to having to explain why we need this EO when the experts disagree and he's on record saying he wants to ban Muslim immigration.

It's almost as if this is all political theatre intended to distract the media from some other looming issue that has recently been in the public eye.

no, he actually wants to get something done that he promised his base.. something racist.. something very white.
The distraction du jour (from RussiaGate) was his tweet on Saturday morning (at 6:30 AM... ??) that Obama committed treason by illegally wiretapping him.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
It's almost as if this is all political theatre intended to distract the media from some other looming issue that has recently been in the public eye.
no, he actually wants to get something done that he promised his base.. something racist.. something very white.
The distraction du jour (from RussiaGate) was his tweet on Saturday morning (at 6:30 AM... ??) that Obama committed treason by illegally wiretapping him.
Yeah, I think if it was theatre, he'd have banned MORE countries, so it looks like he's trying to accomplish something and all those naysayers are the ones stopping him.

WHen he takes words out, removes details, he's still trying to get something past scrutiny.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Okay, real talk for a second here. If the pre-inauguration comments about banning Muslims, the stuff Giuliani said, and the fact that a Muslim ban is verbatim literally still on his fucking website were all fair game for the court case before, how is anything different now? Can't they still point to that stuff, as well as the DHS report that the travel ban isn't needed, and say this is no better than the first EO? It doesn't have a religious exemption in the text anymore, but it still bans people based on their nationality, which was made explicitly illegal in 1965. The only recourse Trump has is to fall back on executive privilege, and that just gets him back to having to explain why we need this EO when the experts disagree and he's on record saying he wants to ban Muslim immigration.

It's almost as if this is all political theatre intended to distract the media from some other looming issue that has recently been in the public eye.

no, he actually wants to get something done that he promised his base.. something racist.. something very white.
The distraction du jour (from RussiaGate) was his tweet on Saturday morning (at 6:30 AM... ??) that Obama committed treason by illegally wiretapping him.

I'd like to see a libel suit.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
I'd like to see a libel suit.

I'd like to see Obama come out and say "Either we had a President of the United States illegally wiretapping a political opponent or we had a President of the United States lying to the American people by accusing another President of criminally abusing his power. Both are very serious matters and we need to find out which one happened. Given that the results of the investigation will implicate the leader of one of the major political parties in our country (and we don't know which one yet), the only way to ensure the facts come out is to have the whole matter of Russian influence on our elections and the reactions of the current and former administrations to this handled by an independent Special Prosecutor".
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'd like to see a libel suit.

never will happen. Obama is too classy a guy to get sucked into that game.

I'd like to see it too.. but we'll sooner see that from Arnold Schwarzenegger than from Obama.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Iraq is off the list, and Green Carders are as well. So does this give him enough cover the courts won't intervene again?

This time he's saying no visas, not trying to ban those that have visas. It was the latter that was the real problem before.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
that was a very significant problem with the original order, but the illegality of that original order was more along the lines of state sponsored religion.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,284
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
I'd like to see a libel suit.

I'd like to see Obama come out and say "Either we had a President of the United States illegally wiretapping a political opponent or we had a President of the United States lying to the American people by accusing another President of criminally abusing his power. Both are very serious matters and we need to find out which one happened. Given that the results of the investigation will implicate the leader of one of the major political parties in our country (and we don't know which one yet), the only way to ensure the facts come out is to have the whole matter of Russian influence on our elections and the reactions of the current and former administrations to this handled by an independent Special Prosecutor".

I see it more like this: "Either we have a President of the United States advancing unfounded conspiracy theories, which he has a long and rich history of doing, or we have a President of the United States leaking classified intelligence activity to the public via Twitter. Both are very serious matters and I think we already know which one happened."
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I'd like to see a libel suit.

never will happen. Obama is too classy a guy to get sucked into that game.

I'd like to see it too.. but we'll sooner see that from Arnold Schwarzenegger than from Obama.

Agree... I don't always get what I like... and neither do you, it seems.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
that was a very significant problem with the original order, but the illegality of that original order was more along the lines of state sponsored religion.
Potential illegality. The courts never ruled the order was illegal, rather it stopped the order until a ruling could be made after hearings, which we never had because after the appeals court knocked overruling the lower courts down, Trump replied with a Tweet, "Okay, we'll make with due diligence and write-up / review a better order'. Or something to that affect.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
that was a very significant problem with the original order, but the illegality of that original order was more along the lines of state sponsored religion.
Potential illegality. The courts never ruled the order was illegal, rather it stopped the order until a ruling could be made after hearings, which we never had because after the appeals court knocked overruling the lower courts down, Trump replied with a Tweet, "Okay, we'll make with due diligence and write-up / review a better order'. Or something to that affect.

Interesting... is that kind of like if he broke the law and then surrendered to the cops, rather than wait for a warrant for his arrest, so that later he could claim that there never was a warrant for his arrest? something like that?

Next year, after the new plan reveals itself to be damaging to many people, he will say that his original plan was perfect, and was never ruled illegal.

- - - Updated - - -


that's a Fake News site... not clicking it.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,284
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
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 might get detained for days without reason (a la Afghan family at LAX last week), but you can still come.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,189
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A Trump travel ban?

Excellent! Ban him from traveling outside Washington D.C.!
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
A Trump travel ban?

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.

And he'll probably reach it in, what, June?
 

funinspace

Don't Panic
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,195
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
A Trump travel ban?

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.

And he'll probably reach it in, what, June?
Oh yeah!!!! But Trump works...I mean Twerks...I mean Tweets into the wee hours of the night. That should count for something.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
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?
Oh yeah!!!! But Trump works...I mean Twerks...I mean Tweets into the wee hours of the night. That should count for something.
Not with Kimmel, Colbert, Daly, Fallon also working steady.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
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.


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.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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.

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.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.
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.
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.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
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.

It's a pretty stupid law and very inconsiderate about America's poor and where few countries are even bothering. Even Germany set quotas. Refugees can be settled much more cheaply in non war zones.

Anyway here's an article (not so old).

http://www.jrs.org.au/resettlement-not-solution-worlds-refugee-crisis/
Why resettlement is not the solution to the world’s refugee crisis

Every minute of every day in 2015, around 24 people were displaced from their homes. That amounted to 34,000 people per day, worldwide, who were forced to seek refuge elsewhere. These large numbers of newly displaced persons further swelled the 16.1 million refugees in the world who, according to the UN Agency for Refugees (UNHCR), were already displaced.

The minute a person becomes refugee, they are plunged into a world of uncertainty: most cannot return home because of continued conflict, wars and persecution. Many seek protection in neighbouring countries, but often lack legal status or fail to have their unique set of needs met. Unable to return home or remain where they are, these people have only one viable solution: resettlement in a third country.

The UNHCR identifies and refers refugees for resettlement. However, so small is the number of countries that participate in the UNHCR’s resettlement programme that at the current rate, it would take 150 years for all refugees under the UNHCR’s mandate to be resettled. In 2015, there were only 107,000 places for 16.1 million refugees, meaning that resettlement was an option for only 0.66 percent of all refugees. The remainder are left in limbo.


Me? I like dealing with Arabs; I share their humour and worked with them. I could well have Arab ancestry on my father's side. But apart from security concerns (even if not all agree) there are severe problems where we are talking about huge global shifts.

I would also agree that the US and its allies created much of this in the last few years.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,404
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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.
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.

Okay, point taken. But the NC Republicans tried to strip long-standing, long used powers from the Gov's office. I'm talking about old statutes that are disused, and getting rid of them to keep them from being mis-used.

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.
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.

Democracy in our nation could be very well doomed. The Republicans are seeing to it.

Agree. I have decided to start referring to Cheato as "the Republican President" and to congress as "The Republican Congress". It might make it a little harder for them to disown the destruction they wreak.
 
Top Bottom