Breaking: 9th Circuit Issues Ruling Not To Protect America's Sovereignty

[beagle9]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

There is no mention of Executive Orders or Executive Privilege in COTUS. None at all.

"Executive orders, like other rules issued by the federal government, are subject to judicial review. A significant example of the Supreme Court striking down a president's executive order came about in 1952. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court held struck down Executive Order 10340, issued by President Harry Truman, which ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize control of a majority of the nation's steel mills in anticipation of a steelworker strike during the Korean War. The court held that President Truman lacked the constitutional or statutory power to seize private property.

"Following Truman's presidency, the Supreme Court did not invalidate any executive orders for several decades. In Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court reviewed several executive orders issued by President Reagan which nullified holds on Iranian assets and removed claims against Iran from US courts following the resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The court took a deferential approach to their review and allowed President Reagan's executive orders to stand. Judicial deference in cases concerning executive orders has largely continued, although a number of executive orders have come under review in district courts.

"On July 30, 2014, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution that allowed Speaker John Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over an executive order the president issued altering the timing requirements for implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The order delayed implementation of certain aspects of the ACA, notably a mandate on employers who did not provide health care coverage. The suit claimed that President Obama's executive powers did not authorize the changing of such a provision. To date, however, the Supreme Court is yet to hear a challenge to any executive order made by President Obama."
JURIST - Executive Orders

. When the EO is written based upon what is allowed in the Constitution, then why would the court need a judicial review other than to confirm that the EO is Constitutional, and that the Constitution gives explicit permission to the president to take actions as per the EO was written?

Your question is moot, the judiciary acted. The plaintiff(s) had standing and the issue was heard and a decision rendered.

Odd how the RW questioned the validity of EO's before trump began to legislate by the seat of his pants, pants by the way that are on fire.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

Where did you read/hear that? I suggest you do some research and start with the Bill of Rights.

 

[beagle9]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

Where did you read/hear that? I suggest you do some research and start with the Bill of Rights.

. The Bill of Rights covers illegal immigrants ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Bill of Rights covers illegal immigrants ?

I never cease to be amazed at how liberals will see rights that are not there while not seeing rights that are specifically spelled out is a broad terms as possible.

They say that foreigners have rights in this country while denying the 2nd amendment was even written for American citizens, despite the 14th Amendments expanded interpretation over the past century,


Amazing.

 

[B. Kidd]

, one Jewess Liberal, a.

Glad to see the Trump voter's priorities.

And, besides, the deportations have begun........yippee!

 

[Flopper]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

They have a constitutional right to due process. This has been upheld by SCOTUS in several cases. SCOTUS also agreed that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th amendment applied to aliens in a particular case, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 1973. However, that ruling is not universal.

 

[Flopper]

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

Where did you read/hear that? I suggest you do some research and start with the Bill of Rights.

. The Bill of Rights covers illegal immigrants ?

Only the 5th.

 

[beagle9]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

They have a constitutional right to due process. This has been upheld by SCOTUS in several cases. SCOTUS also agreed that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th amendment applied to aliens in a particular case, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 1973. However, that ruling is not universal.

. Yes if they end up before a judge your right, where as yes they do have a right to due process, and then it's adios amigo if found to have broken the law. People who have not come here yet, they have no rights to come here unless we agree that they are safe and legally allowed to make the trip.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Marion Morrison]

See: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It appears to me you missed that part about "citizens of the United States" That's "citizens" just to reiterate.

Guess what equal protection under the laws is for non-citizens? Not the same as for citizens.



I'm going to put it out there right now: What that judge did is against all of the United States.


He's trying to undermine the security and safety of the country. That=Sedition.

 

[beagle9]

See: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

. The second that you have emboldend also remains part of or in context with the first where it speaks of the rights of American citizens, and yes if a foreigner comes in contact with the law, and the law finds that the person is an illegal here, then of course the illegal will be subjected to the same due process in court as any other criminal that is offered or granted the same due process of the law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It appears to me you missed that part about "citizens of the United States" That's "citizens" just to reiterate.

Guess what equal protection under the laws is for non-citizens? Not the same as for citizens.



I'm going to put it out there right now: What that judge did is against all of the United States.


He's trying to undermine the security and safety of the country. That=Sedition.

You're entitled to you own opinion, or one you've been brainwashed to hold. The fact is, due process is provided to all ("; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property..."), or was until fascism came to America on Jan 20th, 2017 - a date which will live in infamy.

Even a narrow interpretation of this phrase provides 5th Amendment Rights to the undocumented, visitors with visas, and green card holders, all persons have these essential rights, to wit: "No Person" begins the list a list of human rights, part of the common law in the 5th A.; Rights first promulgated in the Magna Carta in 1215.

 

[Wry Catcher]

See: Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

. The second that you have emboldend also remains part of or in context with the first where it speaks of the rights of American citizens, and yes if a foreigner comes in contact with the law, and the law finds that the person is an illegal here, then of course the illegal will be subjected to the same due process in court as any other criminal that is offered or granted the same due process of the law.

"When a semicolon is used to join two or more ideas (parts) in a sentence, those ideas are then given equal position or rank. Some people write with a word processor; others write with a pen or pencil. Use a semicolon between two independent clauses that are connected by conjunctive adverbs or transitional phrases.

 

[danielpalos]

Fight back against the protesters...defend your nation. I heard the protesters arrested in DC will have the book thrown at them, $10,000 fines and up to 5 years in prison. No more looking the other way like Obama did. Trump will enforce the law.

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The difference is that Iranians were citizens of, and owed allegiance to, a country that was acting against the United States.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

National socialism won over liberal socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

Where did you read/hear that? I suggest you do some research and start with the Bill of Rights.

. The Bill of Rights covers illegal immigrants ?

It limits Government, regardless of legal status. If they are using our Constitution to enact our laws, our Constitution applies.

that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.

 

[Dschrute3]

Assad and Russia have repeatedly warned about the large numbers of Terrorists fleeing to Western Europe and the US. But the Left in those places has chose to ignore the warnings. They really have placed their Citizens in grave danger. They should be held accountable. They were warned.

 

[Flopper]

Trump may ENFORCE order, but his behavior, tweets and EO's are an example of him believing he is the law. Narcissistic megalomania in action.

The why of said bans are irrelevant and Carters ban is an example of the authority of the President over barring immigration.

The courts are not authorized to review the efficacy of the Presidents EOs but only their Constitutionality, and that is the question that you liberals seem to have blinded yourselves to.

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

They have a constitutional right to due process. This has been upheld by SCOTUS in several cases. SCOTUS also agreed that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th amendment applied to aliens in a particular case, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 1973. However, that ruling is not universal.

. Yes if they end up before a judge your right, where as yes they do have a right to due process, and then it's adios amigo if found to have broken the law. People who have not come here yet, they have no rights to come here unless we agree that they are safe and legally allowed to make the trip.

But they do have a right to due process. In fact, most countries in the world extend due process to foreigners. For the US to deny aliens the right to due process would compromise the rights of every Americans traveling abroad.

A visa is an agreement between two countries that allow the holder free entry as long they meet the visa requirements. There is nothing wrong with a nation refusing to issue visas but there certain is with refusing to honor those visas once issued. It's the same as breaking trade agreements, mutual defense, and financial agreements. It destroys faith in all agreements from that nation. The US has had a pretty good record of honoring it's agreements. Hopefully that will continue.

 

[beagle9]

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

Where did you read/hear that? I suggest you do some research and start with the Bill of Rights.

. The Bill of Rights covers illegal immigrants ?

It limits Government, regardless of legal status. If they are using our Constitution to enact our laws, our Constitution applies.

that is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.

. If who is using our Constitution to enact our laws ? OK, so how does our Constitution apply to the illegals or refugee's if they are dangerous, but we have no way of knowing this until they act out ? Once they kill us on our own soil, then how do we address this type of thing if the Constitution has failed us ??

 

[beagle9]

This is true. The court's powers are solely limited to as deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. The EO is Constitutional.


The court was out of bounds.

Determining constitutionality of an EO includes determining if the president overstepped his authority under the constitution. This can be a difficult decision for the court. For example, it's the president's duty to protect the country but it also his duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual and follow other constitutional requirements. If Trump would have offered clear evidence that these 7 countries were engaged in hostile acts against the nation and was a clear and present danger, the court would have ignored the right of visa holders to due process and ruled in his favor.

FDR issued and EO to intern tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent. The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the government. The court simply turned a blind eye to the constitution rights of the individual in favor of national security. The ruling was of course overturned many years latter.

. Foriengners don't have constitutional rights am I right ?

They have a constitutional right to due process. This has been upheld by SCOTUS in several cases. SCOTUS also agreed that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th amendment applied to aliens in a particular case, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 1973. However, that ruling is not universal.

. Yes if they end up before a judge your right, where as yes they do have a right to due process, and then it's adios amigo if found to have broken the law. People who have not come here yet, they have no rights to come here unless we agree that they are safe and legally allowed to make the trip.

But they do have a right to due process. In fact, most countries in the world extend due process to foreigners. For the US to deny aliens the right to due process would compromise the rights of every Americans traveling abroad.

A visa is an agreement between two countries that allow the holder free entry as long they meet the visa requirements. There is nothing wrong with a nation refusing to issue visas but there certain is with refusing to honor those visas once issued. It's the same as breaking trade agreements, mutual defense, and financial agreements. It destroys faith in all agreements from that nation. The US has had a pretty good record of honoring it's agreements. Hopefully that will continue.

. The refugee's are being given visa's ??? What kind of agreements are we doing with them or with these illegals we have in country now ??