Trump's Muslim Ban

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:21 am

bucfanclw wrote:So here's what I'd like to know. The whole thing was being sold as temporary ban while they took 90 days to review the vetting process. It's been 90 days. Why are we still trying to get this pushed through? Are they unable to review the vetting process unless they shut everything down? Why are people more upset about the fact that the travel ban had an injunction than the fact that after 90 days they clearly STILL have no acceptable changes to the vetting process?

Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:25 am

bucfanclw wrote:

So you ask for a link, then provide a link that shows the ban as written is not being upheld. There are only certain injunctions they removed while the case is being heard so..... thanks?

There is apparently conflicting stories. So I'd like to see his. Do you have a problem with that?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11055
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 923 times
Been thanked: 381 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:35 am

Buc2 wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So you ask for a link, then provide a link that shows the ban as written is not being upheld. There are only certain injunctions they removed while the case is being heard so..... thanks?

There is apparently conflicting stories. So I'd like to see his. Do you have a problem with that?

"His". To whom are you referring?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:17 am

Damn it! I'm traveling to Europe and the Middle East starting next weekend. Luckily, I'm white and I'll only be visiting a country in the Middle East that Trump is doing business with so I should be able to make it back home, hopefully.

'The New Yorker' Uncovers Trump Hotel's Ties To Corrupt Oligarch Family
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/07/519063946 ... rch-family
Last edited by deltbucs on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:18 am

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So here's what I'd like to know. The whole thing was being sold as temporary ban while they took 90 days to review the vetting process. It's been 90 days. Why are we still trying to get this pushed through? Are they unable to review the vetting process unless they shut everything down? Why are people more upset about the fact that the travel ban had an injunction than the fact that after 90 days they clearly STILL have no acceptable changes to the vetting process?

Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?

That's what I was wondering a couple weeks ago...
deltbucs wrote:Question for Trump supporters....
Instead of worrying so much about this stupid "temporary ban on all Muslims until we figure things out" how's about President Orange-faced ***** actually figures things out? How long was it suppose to take him to figure it out? He already knows more about ISIS than the generals and has a great brain. You'd think he'd have figured it out by now.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:21 am

deltbucs wrote:Damn it! I'm traveling to Europe and the Middle East starting next weekend. Luckily, I'm white and I'll only be visiting a country in the Middle East that Trump is doing business with so I should be able to make it back home, hopefully.


Starting to get redundant to delineate the two
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3018
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:37 am

bucfanclw wrote:So here's what I'd like to know. The whole thing was being sold as temporary ban while they took 90 days to review the vetting process. It's been 90 days. Why are we still trying to get this pushed through? Are they unable to review the vetting process unless they shut everything down? Why are people more upset about the fact that the travel ban had an injunction than the fact that after 90 days they clearly STILL have no acceptable changes to the vetting process?


Does anyone have an answer to this?
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 8275
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Brazen331 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:22 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:Damn it! I'm traveling to Europe and the Middle East starting next weekend. Luckily, I'm white and I'll only be visiting a country in the Middle East that Trump is doing business with so I should be able to make it back home, hopefully.


Starting to get redundant to delineate the two


Delt does not need to delineate because Trump will allow him to travel anywhere because he is white. Hopefully he stays out of the sun during his vacation so Trump won't be tempted to revoke his travel privileges.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2855
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:59 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So here's what I'd like to know. The whole thing was being sold as temporary ban while they took 90 days to review the vetting process. It's been 90 days. Why are we still trying to get this pushed through? Are they unable to review the vetting process unless they shut everything down? Why are people more upset about the fact that the travel ban had an injunction than the fact that after 90 days they clearly STILL have no acceptable changes to the vetting process?

Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?

Who said it hasn't happened? As for pushing it to SCOTUS, what if they decide in the future that we need to do this again? Now the precedent is set and there is a SCOTUS ruling to back it up. The 9-0 ruling shows everyone what a joke the 9th circus is.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11055
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 923 times
Been thanked: 381 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby HamBone » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:12 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?

Who said it hasn't happened? As for pushing it to SCOTUS, what if they decide in the future that we need to do this again? Now the precedent is set and there is a SCOTUS ruling to back it up. The 9-0 ruling shows everyone what a joke the 9th circus is.


They ruled on this? I thought they weren't going to rule on it until the Fall?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:15 pm

They didn't rule on anything. He just parrots the tweets of Trump.

The decision to hear the case and lift the injunction partially was unsigned, so no vote was actually tallied. There was no "unanimous" vote.

The decision isn't as good for Trump as these fanboys seem to think.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby HamBone » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:24 pm

I don't know where he gets his info...but, I'm sure if the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case and had not lifted the injunction...there would have been plenty of articles posted here...stating how the Supremes bitch slapped the President.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:45 pm

It's not a 'ruling' at all. But it was a the 'unanimous' opinion of the SCOTUS to allow the administration to act on several key components of the Travel Ban (thus lifting the previous injunctions from the lower courts). Since it's from the SCOTUS, no other court can prevent it.

So while this is not a Unanimous SCOTUS ruling like some are saying, it certainly is a big win for the administration on this issue. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise.

The court’s unsigned order was unanimous on granting the administration’s appeal. The only noted dissent came from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, who said they would have allowed the travel ban to be enforced in full. The opinion was signed from the full court. None of the centrist or liberal justices filed a dissent.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 550 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:08 pm

DESPITE WHAT TRUMP SAYS, THE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT 'UNANIMOUS' ON TRAVEL BAN

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it planned to hear arguments regarding President Donald Trump’s travel-ban executive order in October, setting up a showdown that could result in an expansion of the executive branch’s power and represent a major campaign-promise victory for Trump. For now, the court also stated that parts of Trump's revised executive order could be enforced, meaning travelers from six majority-Muslim countries could be blocked from entering the U.S. for 90 days, and the country’s refugee program could be suspended for 120 days.

The court didn't completely ban entry by those from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen who have specific links or relationships to people in the U.S., like family, putting into question previous rulings by lower federal courts.

According to Trump’s personal Twitter account, an official statement released by the White House and even Press Secretary Sean Spicer, the court came to a 9-0 unanimous decision on the matter. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a statement released by the Justice Department, also stated that the court had reached a “unanimous decision.”

Problem is, the court’s announcement was not a decision at all. All that happened was the head of the country’s legislative branch agreed to hear arguments.

Trump also said in a statement: "As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive."

The president added: "Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0."

But as CBS News and several other media outlets have pointed out, the opinion was unsigned, and thus any count involving the court's justices, if there even was one, is unknown.

Three Supreme Court justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—dissented. “I fear that the court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt—whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country.”

BuzzFeed also indicated that the announcement could not be considered unanimous.

During Monday afternoon’s off-camera White House press briefing, the often embattled Spicer reaffirmed the use of “unanimous” but later said he had to check with the White House Counsel’s office.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-scotus-travel-ban-629181
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:21 pm

The question now becomes:

When 90 days have passed and the "research" on vetting has been concluded before the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the EO, won't the President just pull the order? He will have gotten his 90 days and there will be no more need for it.

Or has the plan all along to simply keep this order in place indefinitely?

Given the message today quoted the need to respect national security concerns, his case might be harder to prove that EO should be permanent. It feels like the court gave him a compromise today but shut the door on this being permanent if they are forced to rule in the fall.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:24 pm

Corsair wrote:The question now becomes:

When 90 days have passed and the "research" on vetting has been concluded before the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the EO, won't the President just pull the order? He will have gotten his 90 days and there will be no more need for it.

Or has the plan all along to simply keep this order in place indefinitely?

Given the message today quoted the need to respect national security concerns, his case might be harder to prove that EO should be permanent. It feels like the court gave him a compromise today but shut the door on this being permanent if they are forced to rule in the fall.


As I stated previously, I believe this was always intended to be permanent. We have been attempting to "vet" these countries forever. There is no research that can be done or hasn't been done in the next 90 days to construct records for these people. It's been a bunch of smoke and mirrors to get some of his supporters excited that he's following through on promises and showing that "he's increasing national security".
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:27 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?

Who said it hasn't happened? As for pushing it to SCOTUS, what if they decide in the future that we need to do this again? Now the precedent is set and there is a SCOTUS ruling to back it up. The 9-0 ruling shows everyone what a joke the 9th circus is.

The precedent you're arguing for is that any POTUS could restrict access for all non citizens that have ever visited any country they decide with no rational justification. If the next President banned travel from anyone from Russia because "we can't be sure they commit espionage or deal with for President Trumps businesses." Then we'd have to let that happen. "Nobody from Austrailia until we come up with a way to check for Wallaby Fosters Disease which I've just made up. Sound ridiculous? Good. Then maybe you agree it's a bad precedent.

As far as the SC's action today, temporarily stopping refugee access... sure. No problem. That's why the SC lift that portion of the injunction. Since Trump wanted a full travel ban, he's not getting what he wants so stop pretending this is some sort of victory for him.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:40 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Corsair wrote:The question now becomes:

When 90 days have passed and the "research" on vetting has been concluded before the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the EO, won't the President just pull the order? He will have gotten his 90 days and there will be no more need for it.

Or has the plan all along to simply keep this order in place indefinitely?

Given the message today quoted the need to respect national security concerns, his case might be harder to prove that EO should be permanent. It feels like the court gave him a compromise today but shut the door on this being permanent if they are forced to rule in the fall.


As I stated previously, I believe this was always intended to be permanent. We have been attempting to "vet" these countries forever. There is no research that can be done or hasn't been done in the next 90 days to construct records for these people. It's been a bunch of smoke and mirrors to get some of his supporters excited that he's following through on promises and showing that "he's increasing national security".


I just feel that the way they parsed their decision to hear arguments in the fall session may set them up for:

"We've heard the arguments, we deem the EO lawful and constitutional. We will credit your 90 day ban to time already served. Since the EO is completed, said travel ban is no longer enforceable and goes away".
Last edited by Corsair on Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Caradoc » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:05 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So here's what I'd like to know. The whole thing was being sold as temporary ban while they took 90 days to review the vetting process. It's been 90 days. Why are we still trying to get this pushed through? Are they unable to review the vetting process unless they shut everything down? Why are people more upset about the fact that the travel ban had an injunction than the fact that after 90 days they clearly STILL have no acceptable changes to the vetting process?

Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?


IIRC they weren't allowed to modify the process during the ban
Caradoc
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:12 pm

Caradoc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Yeah, seriously. Why didn't the vetting review happen?


IIRC they weren't allowed to modify the process during the ban

You remember incorrectly.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Rocker » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:23 pm

A few points I'd like to raise (I've skimmed most of the recent posts, apologies if already addressed):

1) For those against the travel ban; which parts do disagree with, and why?

2) What, if any, gains to national security will come from the ban?

3) Partisan politics aside; what's the endgame here? A permanent travel ban for peoples of unverified background checks? Or rather; something more, or less, sinister?

4) What part(s) of this affect John Q Public?
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 215 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby NYBF » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:01 pm

Rocker wrote:3) Partisan politics aside; what's the endgame here? A permanent travel ban for peoples of unverified background checks? Or rather; something more, or less, sinister?



#MAWA
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5964
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 490 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:37 am

Corsair wrote:They didn't rule on anything. He just parrots the tweets of Trump.

The decision to hear the case and lift the injunction partially was unsigned, so no vote was actually tallied. There was no "unanimous" vote.

The decision isn't as good for Trump as these fanboys seem to think.

I don't use Twitter and I parroted the words of USA Today. And the decision is another victory for Trump, albeit, a partial victory.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11055
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 923 times
Been thanked: 381 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:27 am

NYBF wrote:
Rocker wrote:3) Partisan politics aside; what's the endgame here? A permanent travel ban for peoples of unverified background checks? Or rather; something more, or less, sinister?



#MAWA


Poppycock!! That's a dog whistle...

What other country welcomes more immigrants from around the world than America? America is already becoming less white and has been for years. Between immigration (both legal and illegal), white couples statistically having less children, and the increase of interracial marriages the white demographic has been decreasing every census. There is nothing you, me, Trump, or anyone else can do to change that trend.

Reigning in the immigration policy in attempt to prevent what we've seen (and continue to see) in Sweeden, Belguim, Germany, etc is not #MAWA.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 550 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby NYBF » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:29 am

DreadNaught wrote:
NYBF wrote:
#MAWA


Poppycock!! That's a dog whistle...

What other country welcomes more immigrants from around the world than America? America is already becoming less white and has been for years. Between immigration (both legal and illegal), white couples statistically having less children, and the increase of interracial marriages the white demographic has been decreasing every census. There is nothing you, me, Trump, or anyone else can do to change that trend.

Reigning in the immigration policy in attempt to prevent what we've seen (and continue to see) in Sweeden, Belguim, Germany, etc is not #MAWA.


You sound upset.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5964
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 490 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:39 am

DreadNaught wrote:
NYBF wrote:
#MAWA


Poppycock!! That's a dog whistle...

What other country welcomes more immigrants from around the world than America? America is already becoming less white and has been for years. Between immigration (both legal and illegal), white couples statistically having less children, and the increase of interracial marriages the white demographic has been decreasing every census. There is nothing you, me, Trump, or anyone else can do to change that trend.

Reigning in the immigration policy in attempt to prevent what we've seen (and continue to see) in Sweeden, Belguim, Germany, etc is not #MAWA.

Jesus
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:44 am

deltbucs wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Poppycock!! That's a dog whistle...

What other country welcomes more immigrants from around the world than America? America is already becoming less white and has been for years. Between immigration (both legal and illegal), white couples statistically having less children, and the increase of interracial marriages the white demographic has been decreasing every census. There is nothing you, me, Trump, or anyone else can do to change that trend.

Reigning in the immigration policy in attempt to prevent what we've seen (and continue to see) in Sweeden, Belguim, Germany, etc is not #MAWA.

Jesus

He wasn't white either. It's all part of the white genocide being carried out by the left.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:44 am

Lol oh no! Statistics!
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3018
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 364 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:47 am

Rocker wrote:A few points I'd like to raise (I've skimmed most of the recent posts, apologies if already addressed):

1) For those against the travel ban; which parts do disagree with, and why?

2) What, if any, gains to national security will come from the ban?

3) Partisan politics aside; what's the endgame here? A permanent travel ban for peoples of unverified background checks? Or rather; something more, or less, sinister?

4) What part(s) of this affect John Q Public?


1) N/A

2) Prevent potential Islamic Terror attacks by being able to identify the people we are allowing access to America. These countries were placed on the list b/c; they lack the infrastructure apparatus to identify people, are a State sponsor of terror, or we don't have good intel sharing with them. This list was not created by Trump, or even Obama. It was created by the State Dept under John Kerry.

3) My hope is that we get a system in place where every person that enters the country is identified. If some people from certain regions our govt deems a higher risk cannot be verified than they may have to wait longer than those from a 1st world country than so be it. Let's set up some better safe zones in these regions so we can vet those that we want to admit under whatever refugee or immigration program.

4) Our government will have a better understanding of who is entering the country and walking the same streets.

How many people here travel internationally? Are you not screened/questioned every time? I mean we are Americans with one of the most advanced infrastructure systems in the world and other countries love when we visit to spend money. Yet every time we travel we have to be vetted. So why would we not want (at least) that same standard from people that come from areas deemed to be a higher risk?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12779
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 550 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:49 am

beardmcdoug wrote:Lol oh no! Statistics!

A phrase overheard by many a college student...
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Noles1724, Rocker, Selmon Rules and 8 guests