Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree, it is a travel ban. The newest talking point "it is extreme vetting" not a ban is complete BS. It is understandable and not exactly "fake news" as to why this ban is being conflated with anti muslim sentiments.There is no 'Muslim Ban.' That's just more Democrat Fake News. Muslims from most Muslim nations will continue to enter the US. These restrictions only apply to the 7 nations referred to in the Executive Order. Americans should know by now not to believe Democrat Fake News hype.
I agree, it is a travel ban. The newest talking point "it is extreme vetting" not a ban is complete BS. It is understandable and not exactly "fake news" as to why this ban is being conflated with anti muslim sentiments.There is no 'Muslim Ban.' That's just more Democrat Fake News. Muslims from most Muslim nations will continue to enter the US. These restrictions only apply to the 7 nations referred to in the Executive Order. Americans should know by now not to believe Democrat Fake News hype.
Consider this:
- Trump ran on a "Muslim Ban"
- Trump has surrogates that have called this EO a Muslim ban (Most notably Rudy)
- Trump made an announcement after the EO stating that Christians would receive preferred treatment with refugee status. This brings a religious test into the conversation and this is where the unconstitutional accusations are coming from.
- It was a sloppy role out where people with approved green card and visa holders were denied entry into the country. This started things off on a very bad note.
You have every right to your opinion. I think it is sad though. I think if you were close with anybody from Afghanistan or Iraq, you might have a different opinion. We have soldiers who are fighting and dying with Iraq soldiers in their fight against Isis. Now we announce that those people and their family's can't even come to the USA. US citizens who have extended family from those areas can't visit. There has not been one act of terror from a citizen from any of those countries in the US. We have a 2 year screening process already in place to vet refugees and visas. The whole thing is a tough guy posture by Trump and it is sloppy and dangerous and could be very counter productive.I agree, it is a travel ban. The newest talking point "it is extreme vetting" not a ban is complete BS. It is understandable and not exactly "fake news" as to why this ban is being conflated with anti muslim sentiments.There is no 'Muslim Ban.' That's just more Democrat Fake News. Muslims from most Muslim nations will continue to enter the US. These restrictions only apply to the 7 nations referred to in the Executive Order. Americans should know by now not to believe Democrat Fake News hype.
Consider this:
- Trump ran on a "Muslim Ban"
- Trump has surrogates that have called this EO a Muslim ban (Most notably Rudy)
- Trump made an announcement after the EO stating that Christians would receive preferred treatment with refugee status. This brings a religious test into the conversation and this is where the unconstitutional accusations are coming from.
- It was a sloppy role out where people with approved green card and visa holders were denied entry into the country. This started things off on a very bad note.
I support the Order. We shouldn't be taking Thousands in from those very dangerous nations. My only slight problem is, i think Afghanistan should be added to the list. It's still a chaotic dangerous country. I don't feel comfortable accepting folks in from Afghanistan at this point.
You just made her argument... She said that the order passed the OLC in the narrow scope of the written law. She then went on to explain that as AG it was her job to not only consider the law but also outside factors like statements from the Administration and implementation of the order. You said yourself that the Green card issue that arose, YOU felt, was unconstitutional. There were court cases filed and judges ruling against the ban, calling the ACTIONS taken as unconstitutional. In light of such a sloppy role out, which DID infringe on people rights, is it really such a surprise that Yates reacted the way she did as the one responsible to defend this order? I sure would have step down or deemed it indefensible had I been in her shoes.How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.Bullshit. She saw a political opening and took it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the order. its based on existing law, and within the authority of the federal executive branch to set immigration policies.
yes, she suddenly saw it was unconstitutional.... Again, bullshit.
What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?
All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.
We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.
Her statement:
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.
It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.
She wrote the letter and hasn't made a statement since. Hardly grandstanding. But I do agree that she wasn't up to the job and the only options were to resign or be fired. It is amusing to watch the video of Sessions during her confirmation hearing as he was looking for her assurance that she would up hold the law and not simply be a puppet for the president. Of course that was when Obama was prez. Funny how the script flips as administrations shuffleYou just made her argument... She said that the order passed the OLC in the narrow scope of the written law. She then went on to explain that as AG it was her job to not only consider the law but also outside factors like statements from the Administration and implementation of the order. You said yourself that the Green card issue that arose, YOU felt, was unconstitutional. There were court cases filed and judges ruling against the ban, calling the ACTIONS taken as unconstitutional. In light of such a sloppy role out, which DID infringe on people rights, is it really such a surprise that Yates reacted the way she did as the one responsible to defend this order? I sure would have step down or deemed it indefensible had I been in her shoes.How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.You obviously aren't listening or trying to understand both sides of the issue.
What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?
All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.
We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.
Her statement:
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.
It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.
The issue is the AG is supposed to be the advocate for the government, and the government's position. How many government positions have been considered unconstitutional by some parties? Pretty much all of them. What would happen if every AG decided not to defend the government's position every time some dick or jane sued the government over constitutional grounds.
And your proposed action as the fictional AG is telling. You would have resigned. She decided to grandstand, which makes me believe this was nothing but political theater, and not a real indication of her legal beliefs on the topic. I think it was nothing more than her own personal beliefs on the topic.
And she didn't say she wouldn't defend the green card part, (which I don't think was unconstitutional, but was against current law), she wouldn't defend the entire law.
She wrote the letter and hasn't made a statement since. Hardly grandstanding. But I do agree that she wasn't up to the job and the only options were to resign or be fired. It is amusing to watch the video of Sessions during her confirmation hearing as he was looking for her assurance that she would up hold the law and not simply be a puppet for the president. Of course that was when Obama was prez. Funny how the script flips as administrations shuffleYou just made her argument... She said that the order passed the OLC in the narrow scope of the written law. She then went on to explain that as AG it was her job to not only consider the law but also outside factors like statements from the Administration and implementation of the order. You said yourself that the Green card issue that arose, YOU felt, was unconstitutional. There were court cases filed and judges ruling against the ban, calling the ACTIONS taken as unconstitutional. In light of such a sloppy role out, which DID infringe on people rights, is it really such a surprise that Yates reacted the way she did as the one responsible to defend this order? I sure would have step down or deemed it indefensible had I been in her shoes.How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.What's the other side of the issue? That the feds cannot control our borders? That a 90 day hold on visa's being issued to people from countries with terrible records of human rights, border control, and a history of terrorism is somehow the end of the Republic?
All of the hyperbole on this issue is coming from the left. They lie and call it a Muslim ban, they lie and call it unconstitutional, they lie and say Trump left out countries he did business with intentionally.
We, as a country have a right to control our own borders, it is the crux of the Westphalian nation-state concept. The federal executive is mandated by our laws to do so.
Her statement:
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.
It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.
The issue is the AG is supposed to be the advocate for the government, and the government's position. How many government positions have been considered unconstitutional by some parties? Pretty much all of them. What would happen if every AG decided not to defend the government's position every time some dick or jane sued the government over constitutional grounds.
And your proposed action as the fictional AG is telling. You would have resigned. She decided to grandstand, which makes me believe this was nothing but political theater, and not a real indication of her legal beliefs on the topic. I think it was nothing more than her own personal beliefs on the topic.
And she didn't say she wouldn't defend the green card part, (which I don't think was unconstitutional, but was against current law), she wouldn't defend the entire law.
Ok, I guess we are working with the presumptive now. Have it your way, she is the devil!She wrote the letter and hasn't made a statement since. Hardly grandstanding. But I do agree that she wasn't up to the job and the only options were to resign or be fired. It is amusing to watch the video of Sessions during her confirmation hearing as he was looking for her assurance that she would up hold the law and not simply be a puppet for the president. Of course that was when Obama was prez. Funny how the script flips as administrations shuffleYou just made her argument... She said that the order passed the OLC in the narrow scope of the written law. She then went on to explain that as AG it was her job to not only consider the law but also outside factors like statements from the Administration and implementation of the order. You said yourself that the Green card issue that arose, YOU felt, was unconstitutional. There were court cases filed and judges ruling against the ban, calling the ACTIONS taken as unconstitutional. In light of such a sloppy role out, which DID infringe on people rights, is it really such a surprise that Yates reacted the way she did as the one responsible to defend this order? I sure would have step down or deemed it indefensible had I been in her shoes.How about you actually listen to Yates and her justification for her decision. From your comments it doesn't sound like you've done this.
Her statement:
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.
It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.
The issue is the AG is supposed to be the advocate for the government, and the government's position. How many government positions have been considered unconstitutional by some parties? Pretty much all of them. What would happen if every AG decided not to defend the government's position every time some dick or jane sued the government over constitutional grounds.
And your proposed action as the fictional AG is telling. You would have resigned. She decided to grandstand, which makes me believe this was nothing but political theater, and not a real indication of her legal beliefs on the topic. I think it was nothing more than her own personal beliefs on the topic.
And she didn't say she wouldn't defend the green card part, (which I don't think was unconstitutional, but was against current law), she wouldn't defend the entire law.
Don't worry, she will pop up again later, cross behind her, and nails in her hands and feet.
The rest of the progressives are already using her as a rallying call.
Ok, I guess we are working with the presumptive now. Have it your way, she is the devil!She wrote the letter and hasn't made a statement since. Hardly grandstanding. But I do agree that she wasn't up to the job and the only options were to resign or be fired. It is amusing to watch the video of Sessions during her confirmation hearing as he was looking for her assurance that she would up hold the law and not simply be a puppet for the president. Of course that was when Obama was prez. Funny how the script flips as administrations shuffleYou just made her argument... She said that the order passed the OLC in the narrow scope of the written law. She then went on to explain that as AG it was her job to not only consider the law but also outside factors like statements from the Administration and implementation of the order. You said yourself that the Green card issue that arose, YOU felt, was unconstitutional. There were court cases filed and judges ruling against the ban, calling the ACTIONS taken as unconstitutional. In light of such a sloppy role out, which DID infringe on people rights, is it really such a surprise that Yates reacted the way she did as the one responsible to defend this order? I sure would have step down or deemed it indefensible had I been in her shoes.Her statement:
She admits the office that reviews the order passed it. In her own words she didn't think it was "wise or just' That is a judgment call, and not her call to make, and if she didn't like it she should have resigned. It's HER view, and HER opinion, with no legal backing, or reasoning.
It was political grandstanding, and the door SHOULD have hit ass on the way out.
The issue is the AG is supposed to be the advocate for the government, and the government's position. How many government positions have been considered unconstitutional by some parties? Pretty much all of them. What would happen if every AG decided not to defend the government's position every time some dick or jane sued the government over constitutional grounds.
And your proposed action as the fictional AG is telling. You would have resigned. She decided to grandstand, which makes me believe this was nothing but political theater, and not a real indication of her legal beliefs on the topic. I think it was nothing more than her own personal beliefs on the topic.
And she didn't say she wouldn't defend the green card part, (which I don't think was unconstitutional, but was against current law), she wouldn't defend the entire law.
Don't worry, she will pop up again later, cross behind her, and nails in her hands and feet.
The rest of the progressives are already using her as a rallying call.
What kind of shit "MUSLIM BAN" is this when 87% of the world's Muslims are still free to enter the USA with PROPER PAPERWORK?
If 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS can enter the USA, Trump doesn't know how to do a ban.
so true-----it is a HOSTILE COUNTRY BAN-------nothing new
Nope, you're a DAMN RACIST!!!! It's a MUSLIM BAN!!
What kind of shit "MUSLIM BAN" is this when 87% of the world's Muslims are still free to enter the USA with PROPER PAPERWORK?
If 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS can enter the USA, Trump doesn't know how to do a ban.
so true-----it is a HOSTILE COUNTRY BAN-------nothing new
Presumably ALL of the countries that contained the 9/11 hijackers, the shoebomber, et al, are NOT hostile?
That's what you're saying?
So our goal is to retroactively stop an attack that happened in 2001?
So where's your time machine?
So it's your position that the countries of origin for hijackers who produced the worst terrorist attack in world history are NOT countries that are likely to host more attackers?
can you be more specific?
Trump is NOT banning entry from immigrations from UAE, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Those are the exact countries where all 19 9/11 hijackers came from.
He's also not banning travel from Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was being sheltered.
So tell me again how this ban is targeted to prevent future attacks when it doesn't address the country that played host to the perpetrators of ALL PRIOR ATTACKS?
What kind of shit "MUSLIM BAN" is this when 87% of the world's Muslims are still free to enter the USA with PROPER PAPERWORK?
If 1.4 BILLION MUSLIMS can enter the USA, Trump doesn't know how to do a ban.
Chad pulls out of fight against Boko Haram after Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban' comes into force
