Trump Issues New Travel Ban

[Loren Pechtel]

A Trump travel ban?

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Malintent]

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.

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.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

I don't remember that being part of the stipulation. James Madison or dismal might know, they kept citing it in the first thread on the original EO. It was passed in the 50s I think.