It was post reply to ElectricFetus question Why not both? Of course it won't be protecting much freedom if the government decides to VX us all. You justhave.... I just have what?
So what happens if Trump > Steve Bannon > DHS tells the courts to go F themselves? DHS will continue to enforce Trump's travel ban The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement early Sunday saying that they plan on continuing to “enforce all of the president’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.” ... “The president’s executive orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety,” the statement said. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/29/dhs-will-continue-to-enforce-trumps-travel-ban.html Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders. The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/ No matter what else is said, you have to admit this is extremely interesting to follow - stay tuned!
Who knew politics would be more entertaining than cage fighting with topless females (joke Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) I watched a reply to this question on the American news channels It appears that Trump trumps the judges who apparently in past rulings have upheld the President rule Part because he is the boss and it is not the job of the court to second guess the boss and it is NOT for the judge to make laws or negate laws but to apply laws to the situation before the court The current hold is to give time for the ragged edges of the ban to be made tidy and clarified
Sure, Nixon. The "public" that you are seeing now however is mainly those that didn't vote for him. Those that did aren't demonstrating at this point. After all, he just got elected. Many Presidents step up to the job as the magnitude of the job becomes felt. I don't see Trump doing that however.
GOOD NEW EVERYBODY! https://archive.is/bKKVU "US judge blocks deportations under Trump's Muslim ban Ruling temporarily ends detention of travellers with valid visas and prohibits their removal from the US."
The Chump team is finding out, the hard way, that there are a lot more moving parts to these policies than the facile speeches made on the campaign trial. "Hahahaha!", said an EU spokesman.
Thought ruling temporarily stopped deportation but did not prohibit detention That would make sense It would also might have made sense to give a very short (my ball park figure would be 10 hours) leeway before order took effect This would have catered for those in transit without giving bad guys time to organise a trip into America Granted it would still be a hassle for those with visa's intending to return some time after the order began to be implemented but thems the breaks Anyone know how it affects aliens who became citizens (without dual citizenship)? Admittedly those who have valid visas might need to submit to a more extensive vetting which arguably should have already been in place I did hear scant news items about some of those early detainees have elected to voluntary return to their departure point No comment here until further information becomes available Tighten your seat belt with your tray in the upright position Crew secure the meal trolley and cease serving drinks Forecast is turbulence ahead with the expectation of a rough landing Oxygen can be made available for those who require it Make sure you know where your nearest exit is Good luck everyone
Michael 345, If this ban is to prevent entry of terrorist into the nation why is Saudi Arabia not on the list?
It is exactly the job of the court to second guess the boss. That is its job description. That's what "apply laws" means, to a judge.
That appears to be an honest question. Apparently, Trump voters find it reasonable to imagine a US President having an American citizen walking down the street seized by agents of the INS, bundled off incommunicado into a detainment center at Gitmo, interrogated there by waterboarding and "much worse", and then evicted from the country to a location of the President's choosing, on his sayso, no trial or anything of the kind. To prevent terrorism, apparently.
I can only repeat a explanation given on news reports The 7 countries listed are war zones with no central government with records on the population of the country Without records none of the counties population can provide proof of their status Without proof of who you are sorry no entry Just on the news as I am typing NO FOREIGN NATIONAL HAS A AUTOMATIC RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE US RIGHT OF ENTRY RESIDES WITH THE GOVERNMENT Further a person just giving information the 7 countries account for 7% of the worlds supposed group being targeted
Didn't I say 'apply' in my post Apply laws as they stand Not second guess the boss by 'I think he means' thought bubbles
Wait, Iran has no central government and is a war zone? Maybe your saying Iran has no records on there population? They got birth certificates, licenses, voting registration, medical records, criminal records, etc, what fucking more do you think is necessary? Irrelevant! Woo woo wait that only 7% of terrorists?
