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.
OKTexas, post: 16497789The law gives the president desecration to do what he did, and just like Carters order which was temporarily stayed, this one will be upheld on appeal.
The people with visas are coming in. Trump has to prove in court that vetted people from these countries pose a threat that did not exist a week ago.
That is nothing close to what Carter did. Carter was punishing Tehran for holding sixty Americans hostage.
Trump's problem is he didn't vet his order through constitutional and national security vetting.
Borders Reopen to Banned Visa Holders; Trump Attacks Judge. NYTimes Feb 4
.Judge Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declared that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected countries, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya
Its not looking good for Trump's publicity stunt.
Trump has been checked and balanced.
Ray From Cleveland, post: 16495551,The EO was for people from certain countries, not certain religions.
You don't suspect foul bigoted discriminatory motive when one week into office Trump finds out that nationals with approved Visas from these seven predominately Muslim countries suddenly are a danger.
You are very naive indeed. Specifically after knowing what Guilini said about the discussion he had with Trump earlier.
Trump did it to appease anti-Muslim white Chritian bigots and other Muslim haters that gave him overwhelming support on ejection day.
He could have given a order to review weak links in the vetting process and slowed it down and improved it on a specific basis if such weaknesses were found.
Nope Trump had to do a publicity stunt instead.
And it backfired.
No I'm suggesting nothing, 5 US intel officials including James Clapper testified to congress that they can't check information that's not available.
None of these people said they were granting visas to people they have not checked.
NATION’S TOP SECURITY OFFICIALS’ CONCERNS ON REFUGEE VETTING
Nation’s Top Security Officials’ Concerns on Refugee Vetting - House Committee on Homeland Security
House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaulstated yesterday during a pen and pad on H.R. 4038, “It is the Administration’s own officials that were warning us about this program. It’s not me making this up. This came from testimony that came from both F.B.I. and homeland security officials in briefings and in public testimony. I would argue that [the President] can spin it politically anyway he wants to but the fact of the matter is: the threat is real. ISIS has said in their own words that they want to exploit it to infiltrate the West. Again, it is not a threat I am making up, it’s a threat their own officials have warned us about.” (11/18/15)
Here’s what others are saying:
Gen. (ret.) Jack Keane, Chairman of the Board, Institute for the Study of War: “I’m absolutely convinced that you’re doing the right thing by pausing and making certain that the Congress takes a look at the Executive Branch’s plans and makes certain that it’s reasonable what we’re doing in terms of the vetting process.” (11/18/15).
John Brennan, Director, Central Intelligence Agency: “I think it makes it even more incumbent on the security and intelligence professionals to make sure that we are able to look at individuals who are coming into this country with an eye toward what it is that we might know about individuals or ways that terrorist organizations might try to secret people into these networks, into these refugee flows…[I am determined to] see what we can do to strengthen that system that allows us to have as best insight as possible into the backgrounds of these individuals as well as what their intentions might be.” (11/18/15)
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation.” (10/21/15)
Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)
Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be…you can only review [refugees’ submitted background data] against what you have.” (10/8/15)
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice: “There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like [Syria]… My concern there [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States] is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us.” (10/8/15)
Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we’re not going to know a whole lot about.” (10/8/15)
Gen. (ret.) John Allen, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, State Department: “We should be conscious of the potential that [ISIS] may attempt to embed agents within that [Syrian refugee] population.” (9/11/15)
Gen. (ret.) James Clapper, Director, Director of National Intelligence: “As [Syrian refugees] descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background? We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees…That is a huge concern of ours.” (9/9/15)
Michael Steinbach, Assistant Director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation: “Yes, I’m concerned [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States]…We’ll have to go take a look at those lists and go through all of those intelligence holdings and be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist groups…in Iraq, we were there on the ground collecting [intelligence], so we had databases to use…You have to have information to vet, so the concern is in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in places on the ground to collect the information.” (2/12/15)
Nicholas J. Rasmussen , Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “[The Syrian refugees are] clearly a population of concern…what we want to be able to do is apply the full weight of U.S. intelligence community holdings to the vetting and screening process so that we can unearth any information that we may have in our holdings that gives us concern about particular individuals.” (2/12/15)
Francis X. Taylor, Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security: “We are concerned about any group of people coming to the United States who may be coming to the United States for nefarious purposes…[officials] want to make sure that if we are asked to vet individuals from any part of the world to come to the United States, that we have applied the most rigorous screening that’s available within the U.S. government.” (2/12/15)
Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)
Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be…you can only review [refugees’ submitted background data] against what you have.” (10/8/15)
Correct, because we made those rights.
You are dead wrong but you just won't man up to admitting it, and I also note that you have not defended your assertion that the EO was Constitutional and an admission that you were also wrong on that score also!You are purposefully ignoring the plain language in 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3) which clearly states;You are clueless of the where the sovereignty of this nation begins. US soil has naughty to do with it on its seaward boundaries! US sovereignty begins inside our territorial waters on the seaward boundaries. They were set at 3 miles until Reagan adopted the 12 mile limit after the advent of UNCLOS! Live with the law! Many people, including the VA, quibble about which is lawful and when; a lesson learned from the past. After Reagan's Proclamation of accepting UNCLOS in 1988, it became a 12 mile limit for territorial waters where US sovereignty begins along the sea boundary.
44 USC § 1505 "COULD" apply if this requirement to lawfully bypass that necessity in that Section had been met and only for this this;
"(c)Suspension of Requirements for Filing of Documents; Alternate Systems for Promulgating, Filing, or Publishing Documents; Preservation of Originals. In the event of an attack or threatened attack upon the continental United States and a determination by the President that as a result of an attack or threatened attack—"
Was there an attack or threat of attack? Nope! Trump violated the statute and enforced EO 13769 three days before it was even filed with FR on Jan 31st at 11:15 AM failing to give the required legal notice, and your weaseling won't change the facts! You're wrong!
Me thinks you missed this part of 44 USC § 1505.
(1)Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;
The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.You're desperate now I can see and grasping at straws. Isn't it bloody obvious to you that the passage you cited above from 44 USC § 1505 (a)(1) was not applicable in that case given the damn EO WAS BLOODY PUBLISHED?The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.
Further, If you had done due diligence and read the totality of 44 USC § 1505 you would have discovered this bit in the last sentence of 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3);
Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status, the EO was REQUIRED to be published in a timely manner to give PROPER LEGAL NOTICE. Your boat don't float leaving you with another failed argument in your defense of the Trump & Co cabal.For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.
Bottom line is Trump is responsible for not giving proper legal notice in the Federal Register BEFORE enforcing his EO. He has committed another impeachable offense which will be added to the list! Q.E.D.
Thanks, you just proved the EO does NOT have general applicability. My bold.
QUOTE="ThoughtCrimes, post: 16495295, member: 37853"]Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status,
"For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect." You argued that the EO didn't.
People with valid entry visas were penalized by being refused entry. That penalty was written into the EO. Therefore your claim that the EO didn't need proper and lawful timely notification in the Federal Register is abjectly FALSE! There is no weaseling around the language of that statutory requirement. You are wrong yet again!
Except they are not being refused entry, their entry is being delayed for 90 days to ensure they aren't a danger to this country. It applies to only 14% of muslim countries and includes all persons form those countries, because they lack a coherent central government with the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals.
The law gives the president desecration to do what he did, and just like Carters order which was temporarily stayed, this one will be upheld on appeal.
You are dead wrong but you just won't man up to admitting it, and I also note that you have not defended your assertion that the EO was Constitutional and an admission that you were also wrong on that score also!You are purposefully ignoring the plain language in 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3) which clearly states;Me thinks you missed this part of 44 USC § 1505.
(1)Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;
The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.You're desperate now I can see and grasping at straws. Isn't it bloody obvious to you that the passage you cited above from 44 USC § 1505 (a)(1) was not applicable in that case given the damn EO WAS BLOODY PUBLISHED?The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.
Further, If you had done due diligence and read the totality of 44 USC § 1505 you would have discovered this bit in the last sentence of 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3);
Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status, the EO was REQUIRED to be published in a timely manner to give PROPER LEGAL NOTICE. Your boat don't float leaving you with another failed argument in your defense of the Trump & Co cabal.For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.
Bottom line is Trump is responsible for not giving proper legal notice in the Federal Register BEFORE enforcing his EO. He has committed another impeachable offense which will be added to the list! Q.E.D.
Thanks, you just proved the EO does NOT have general applicability. My bold.
QUOTE="ThoughtCrimes, post: 16495295, member: 37853"]Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status,
"For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect." You argued that the EO didn't.
People with valid entry visas were penalized by being refused entry. That penalty was written into the EO. Therefore your claim that the EO didn't need proper and lawful timely notification in the Federal Register is abjectly FALSE! There is no weaseling around the language of that statutory requirement. You are wrong yet again!
Except they are not being refused entry, their entry is being delayed for 90 days to ensure they aren't a danger to this country. It applies to only 14% of muslim countries and includes all persons form those countries, because they lack a coherent central government with the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals.
The law gives the president desecration to do what he did, and just like Carters order which was temporarily stayed, this one will be upheld on appeal.
To now claim that there was no penalty applied to the immigrants covered by the EO is nothing but blatant sophistry! Further, to claim that the EO applied to all persons from those seven countries displays either your ignorance of the EO or a penchant for distorting the facts.
Their were carve outs based on religion, for such minority faiths as Jews and Christians refugees. The favoring of one religion over another for the determination of refugee status on its very face violated the Establishment clause. You are wrong seven ways to Sunday, Tex! You really need to read that EO to find out what's in it instead of taking all the propaganda being bandied about on face value. I'm done going over the same ground with you time and again!
Correct, because we made those rights.
Cool. So you're denying the rights to others which US citizens gave to your ancestors. How benevolent of you.
Yes I am. But those people who gave my ancestors those rights didn't have to worry about them hijacking a plane and flying it into one of our buildings either. They didn't have to worry about them working here and sending the money they made back to their home country.
Think of this country like a golf club or country club. There is only so much room, and if you let too many people in, especially those you're not 100% sure of, you could lose what you created. But because those members allowed me to join doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree to anybody else joining our club either.
Yes I am. But those people who gave my ancestors those rights didn't have to worry about them hijacking a plane and flying it into one of our buildings either. They didn't have to worry about them working here and sending the money they made back to their home country.
Think of this country like a golf club or country club. There is only so much room, and if you let too many people in, especially those you're not 100% sure of, you could lose what you created. But because those members allowed me to join doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree to anybody else joining our club either.
But I'm sure a large number of those ancestors gave rise to John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahlmer and Tim McVeigh...
I don't approve of the way Trump did this Executive Order, but I really find the hypocrisy coming from the Democratic Party quite astounding, but typical. A few years back when Texas was talking about not issuing birth certificate to children born to illegal immigrants the Democrats said the states don't have standing on the issue of immigration as it is strictly a federal matter. Now all of a sudden when the federal government is doing something with immigration they don't like it's now a state issue. Funny how that works, huh.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson had sued, saying the order is causing significant harm to residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the suit this week.
U.S. judge temporarily blocks Trump's travel ban
from countries that preach killing Americans and scream "DEATH TO AMERICA!" in plain view.
from countries that preach killing Americans and scream "DEATH TO AMERICA!" in plain view.
I know. Thank goodness the Wahibist-run Saudi Arabia who payroll radical madrases is on that list....
...oh, that's right, it's not.
Plus your analogy is flawed. I have video upon video I could put up of KKK members dissing blacks and Jews. Ergo, all Americans hate blacks and Jews....
The KKK is not creating nuclear weapons and have never used American's for hostages on several occasions.
While the Pussy Hats march, protest and riot, it's you on the left screaming they have the right to free speech. Is there anybody else on your list you wish to exclude besides the KKK?
The KKK is not creating nuclear weapons and have never used American's for hostages on several occasions.
While the Pussy Hats march, protest and riot, it's you on the left screaming they have the right to free speech. Is there anybody else on your list you wish to exclude besides the KKK?
That was over 35 years ago. Vietnam doesn't hold a grudge neither should you.
I'm not a leftie. They have a right to protest. Not riot. I have never condoned their rioting.
It doesn't help have the Orange Buffoon in office who isn't even remotely interested in being inclusive to those who didn't vote for him. He is so narcissistic, ego-driven and arrogant he worries more about himself than anybody else. I mean, he goes to a church and starts talking about Arnie and Apprentice ratings? The guy has no class and is way out of touch. Then again, what would you expect from an out of touch 'billionaire.'
What was going on over 35 years ago, Iran creating nuclear weapons or the KKK protesting? Because unless time is flying faster than I thought, both are doing that today.
Perhaps instead of listening to out of context leftists sound clips, get the entire speech and see if you still disagree with what Trump said. Oh, that's right, you're not a leftist. Most people who side with leftists seldom are..... so they claim.
Now who is Trump not inclusive towards? After all, Trump said "They want the key to the car back, but we won't give it to them. They can come along for the ride, but they'll have to sit in the back seat!" Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, that was not Trump, it was somebody else.
What was going on over 35 years ago, Iran creating nuclear weapons or the KKK protesting? Because unless time is flying faster than I thought, both are doing that today.
Perhaps instead of listening to out of context leftists sound clips, get the entire speech and see if you still disagree with what Trump said. Oh, that's right, you're not a leftist. Most people who side with leftists seldom are..... so they claim.
Now who is Trump not inclusive towards? After all, Trump said "They want the key to the car back, but we won't give it to them. They can come along for the ride, but they'll have to sit in the back seat!" Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, that was not Trump, it was somebody else.
hostages I'm talking
Iran is not creating nukes...yet. Obama and Clinton sorted that, but it looks like Trump is shitting on that too..
Yeah, but he set the tone...
You have to be kidding me, Iran is not creating nukes? And if you're talking about American hostages, DumBama just paid them to let American hostages go.
