Court Decision

[XCR1250]

The 9th. circuit court decisions are overturned more than 80% of the time, and probably will be this time too as the President can do what he did by these Laws, 8 US Code 1182.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[racer254]

44 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

The 9th. circuit court decisions are overturned more than 80% of the time, and probably will be this time too as the President can do what he did by these Laws, 8 US Code 1182.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

That's why they are called the nutty 9th.

[ICEMAN!]

Well good luck with that, or Trump could tear up the EO and write one that can withstand a court challenge.  Do you think he will, I mean the country is being flooded with evil people as we speak.  Will he do something for the good of the country or try and save face and protect his ego?  I know where I'd put my money.

[snoughnut]

1 minute ago, ICEMAN! said:

Well good luck with that, or Trump could tear up the EO and write one that can withstand a court challenge.  Do you think he will, I mean the country is being flooded with evil people as we speak.  Will he do something for the good of the country or try and save face and protect his ego?  I know where I'd put my money.

Hey shiny top, why don't you just pay attention to nook land and open your own door to some refugees.

[02sled]

29 minutes ago, snoughnut said:

Hey shiny top, why don't you just pay attention to nook land and open your own door to some refugees.

Yup one of our blessed Syrian refugees was just arrested and charged. Soleiman Hajj Soleiman, 39, is charged with six counts of sexual assault and six counts of sexual interference. Great screening. My money says he was a pervert before the government flew him here and paid all the expenses for him and his family to live for a year.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-charged-after-teenaged-girls-say-they-were-sexual-assaulted-at-west-edmonton-mall-water-park

Now that he's here we are stuck with him it seems. As soon as he's convicted he should be on a flight to Syria. Or perhaps Iceman may like to take him into his home and support him.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 02sled

[ICEMAN!]

8 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Yup one of our blessed Syrian refugees was just arrested and charged. Soleiman Hajj Soleiman, 39, is charged with six counts of sexual assault and six counts of sexual interference. Great screening. My money says he was a pervert before the government flew him here and paid all the expenses for him and his family to live for a year.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-charged-after-teenaged-girls-say-they-were-sexual-assaulted-at-west-edmonton-mall-water-park

Now that he's here we are stuck with him it seems. As soon as he's convicted he should be on a flight to Syria. Or perhaps Iceman may like to take him into his home and support him.

I think I read in the news how he was the first person to ever be charged with sexual assault in this country!  Incredible!

[spin_dry]

the ban met the standard for immigration law, but was ruled unconstitutional. 

[Mainecat]

49 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Well good luck with that, or Trump could tear up the EO and write one that can withstand a court challenge.  Do you think he will, I mean the country is being flooded with evil people as we speak.  Will he do something for the good of the country or try and save face and protect his ego?  I know where I'd put my money.

think of all the evil people here already.....boogey man......boogey man

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Well good luck with that, or Trump could tear up the EO and write one that can withstand a court challenge.  Do you think he will, I mean the country is being flooded with evil people as we speak.  Will he do something for the good of the country or try and save face and protect his ego?  I know where I'd put my money.

Why.   He can take it to the SC.   If he is defeated there then re-write it.   

Many legal scholars think the SC will have no choice but to uphold Trumps ban or at least much of it.   Here are a few of the reasons.

Non-Citizens who are not on US soil do not get constitutional protection.   If we give them due process then ANYONE outside the US could technically sue us for say drone strikes or other military actions.  It also implies due process for enemy combatants taken off the field of battle in foreign lands.    

Ban was temporary in nature for all but those coming from Syria.  The previous Admin already highlighted these countries as areas of concern as to information available to the State Dept when vetting people.  

Supreme court previously ruled in favor of the President having this authority. U.S. v. Flores-Montano.  

In United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), the Court had said, "Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant." 

The Court's ruling in this case rests on the fact that the search at issue in this case took place at the international border. "The Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border." In light of the Government's interest in protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity, "searches made at the border... are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." 

"On one side, the government is trying to implement “an effective immigration regime that ensures the safety of all Americans,” something that is “undoubtedly difficult.” On the other side, there is a “hardship to the professional and personal lives” of aliens trying to enter the country.

But it is not up to a judge to make that policy choice. The judge’s only role is to review whether the president’s action is authorized by the Constitution and federal law."

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-is-both-legal-and-constitutional/

A judge who follows the law understands it is what is WRITTEN in the law not what was said on the campaign trail or by an adviser.

Some of Obama's own justices he appointed often ruled against him.   While there are definite liberal/conservative wings of the SC it often rules much differently than many of the appellate courts.   Especially the 9th district which is the most overturned one in the nation.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

"While the conventional wisdom about Arizona v. United States (2012) is that the high court smacked down a perniciously anti-immigrant state, Arizona actually won unanimously on its most controversial “show me your papers” provision. Not one justice accepted the theory that mere enforcement priorities trump state laws."

A judge in Mass ruled against the TRO and in favor of the EO.  

In a victory for Trump, US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton in Massachusetts refused to extend a temporary stay on the president’s ban in Boston, saying Trump would likely succeed in the case on the grounds that he has broad authority over federal immigration laws.

The govt attorney did a horrible job and won't be repeated.   He failed to present evidence even though he should not have needed to as that is not what the case was about.   It was simply does the POTUS have this authority.  

 

 

[02sled]

27 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

I think I read in the news how he was the first person to ever be charged with sexual assault in this country!  Incredible!

The point is they should be properly vetted and screened before being let into the country. My money says this isn't his first time and he was a pervert with a record before boarding the plane to Canada. Current vetting. Are you a terrorist. No. Do you have a criminal record. No I'll take your word for it. Welcome to Canada.

If a 50 year old person born in Canada, with a good education, skills in demand, a family, financially stable and a criminal record for say shoplifting when they were 17 and nothing since wants to emigrate to the US to a guaranteed job, they can't. They are inadmissible. Now someone from Syria whose background you take their word for is welcomed with open arms. But of course they are all good people with strong moral values. Just look at the dramatic increase in German crime rates that correspond to the dramatic increase in refugees.

[ICEMAN!]

9 minutes ago, 02sled said:

The point is they should be properly vetted and screened before being let into the country. My money says this isn't his first time and he was a pervert with a record before boarding the plane to Canada. Current vetting. Are you a terrorist. No. Do you have a criminal record. No I'll take your word for it. Welcome to Canada.

If a 50 year old person born in Canada, with a good education, skills in demand, a family, financially stable and a criminal record for say shoplifting when they were 17 and nothing since wants to emigrate to the US to a guaranteed job, they can't. They are inadmissible. Now someone from Syria whose background you take their word for is welcomed with open arms. But of course they are all good people with strong moral values. Just look at the dramatic increase in German crime rates that correspond to the dramatic increase in refugees.

What vetting process did Germany use for the refugees you're referring to?

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

What vetting process did Germany use for the refugees you're referring to?

Part of the problem with the current system is they can come from one of the seven countries, travel through Europe and come to the US without any increased scrutiny.  That is one thing Trump is trying to increase vetting on.  Anyone who originated or traveled from one of the 7 countries not just flying directly from there to the US.

Trump wants to add looking into the social media history of visa applicants/holders as well as call history.   We have a pretty good handle on those unlike a simple interview or asking the home country what the people are like which is laughable to think would provide credible information.  A simple search of SM and call history will show if they have contact with anything radical.  

Reality is Trump does not need this EO to increase the vetting.   The State Department can simply just do it.  Granted you cannot go back on those who already have Visa's but anyone applying for them will get looked into much deeper.  

Edited February 10, 2017 by Highmark

[ICEMAN!]

14 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Part of the problem with the current system is they can come from one of the seven countries, travel through Europe and come to the US without any increased scrutiny.  That is one thing Trump is trying to increase vetting on.  Anyone who originated or traveled from one of the 7 countries not just flying directly from there to the US.

Trump wants to add looking into the social media history of visa applicants/holders as well as call history.   We have a pretty good handle on those unlike a simple interview or asking the home country what the people are like which is laughable to think would provide credible information.  A simple search of SM and call history will show if they have contact with anything radical.  

Reality is Trump does not need this EO to increase the vetting.   The State Department can simply just do it.  Granted you cannot go back on those who already have Visa's but anyone applying for them will get looked into much deeper.  

First of all, you don't need to impose a ban to look at someone's Facebook account.

Secondly, why isn't Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc on the list?

 

[Momorider]

5 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

First of all, you don't need to impose a ban to look at someone's Facebook account.

Secondly, why isn't Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc on the list?

 

They can provide adequate vetting documentation you ignoramus Fuck me you don't even have the first fucking clue of what the EO was even about yet here you are spewing your unknowing hackery

[ICEMAN!]

Just now, Momorider said:

They can provide adequate vetting documentation you ignoramus Fuck me you don't even have the first fucking clue of what the EO was even about yet here you are spewing your unknowing hackery

Afghanistan can provide adequate vetting documentation?

[Momorider]

1 minute ago, ICEMAN! said:

Afghanistan can provide adequate vetting documentation?

The $1B dollar embassy is good for something after all 

[Highmark]

21 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

First of all, you don't need to impose a ban to look at someone's Facebook account.

Secondly, why isn't Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc on the list?

 

I agree they absolutely should be however this list came from the previous administration and I'm not sure the information that the Director of National Security and the SD used to create the list is available to the public.   Since it was the Obama admin I'm sure the reasons are valid right?   I can't say for sure but I'm pretty sure these countries are some of the places with the highest percentage of ISIS combatants, power structure and training capabilities.   I think anyone would agree that ISIS is probably as far as organized group the most significant risk.  A close second and third being AQ and AS also have strong presences in these countries.  

Besides the temporary ban Trump added people who traveled to and from these countries not just foreign nationals.   You have to be pretty obtuse not to understand that people from other countries go to these places for training in terrorist activities.  Over 60 have been CONVICTED in the US since 9/11.

 

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

The Trump administration points out that all were previously on a list of "countries of concern." This is true.

The DHS compiled the list last year, following the passage of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.

But -- and it's a substantial "but" -- those new restrictions were not aimed at citizens of these countries. They were aimed at those eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): people of dual nationality or -- for example -- someone of French or Belgian nationality who'd been to Yemen or Iraq. Those restrictions did not amount to a ban on entry but demanded much more information from applicants.

The main reason, according to the US Customs and Border Patrol, was "the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States." (The US maintains a Visa Waiver Program with 38 countries.)

http://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/60-terrorist-plots-911-continued-lessons-domestic-counterterrorism

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Highmark

[02sled]

49 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

What vetting process did Germany use for the refugees you're referring to?

They didn't which is the problem. We do a piss poor job of vetting them as well and we need to fix that.

[02sled]

27 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

First of all, you don't need to impose a ban to look at someone's Facebook account.

Secondly, why isn't Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc on the list?

 

The point is... stop the free flow of people who haven't been scrutinized temporarily until the implementation of new much tighter screening can be implemented and those that were about to travel can be vetted much more closely.

[ICEMAN!]

2 minutes ago, 02sled said:

They didn't which is the problem. We do a piss poor job of vetting them as well and we need to fix that.

Ohhhhhh they didn't vet them you say?  Well well well, so why would you use what's happening in Germany as an example of what can happen here?

[02sled]

2 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Ohhhhhh they didn't vet them you say?  Well well well, so why would you use what's happening in Germany as an example of what can happen here?

Because both Canada and the US are doing a piss poor job of vetting those that simply claim I am a refugee. No papers, no ID, no documentation, just their word that they are good people. What can happen in Germany can happen in North America. The major manifestation is that Germany has larger numbers of refugees due to proximity.

[ICEMAN!]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I agree they absolutely should be however this list came from the previous administration and I'm not sure the information that the Director of National Security and the SD used to create the list is available to the public.   Since it was the Obama admin I'm sure the reasons are valid right?   I can't say for sure but I'm pretty sure these countries are some of the places with the highest percentage of ISIS combatants, power structure and training capabilities.   I think anyone would agree that ISIS is probably as far as organized group the most significant risk.  A close second and third being AQ and AS also have strong presences in these countries.  

Besides the temporary ban Trump added people who traveled to and from these countries not just foreign nationals.   You have to be pretty obtuse not to understand that people from other countries go to these places for training in terrorist activities.  Over 60 have been CONVICTED in the US since 9/11.

 

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

The Trump administration points out that all were previously on a list of "countries of concern." This is true.

The DHS compiled the list last year, following the passage of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.

But -- and it's a substantial "but" -- those new restrictions were not aimed at citizens of these countries. They were aimed at those eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): people of dual nationality or -- for example -- someone of French or Belgian nationality who'd been to Yemen or Iraq. Those restrictions did not amount to a ban on entry but demanded much more information from applicants.

The main reason, according to the US Customs and Border Patrol, was "the risks posed by the situation in Syria and Iraq, where instability has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, including many from VWP countries. Such individuals could travel to the United States." (The US maintains a Visa Waiver Program with 38 countries.)

http://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/60-terrorist-plots-911-continued-lessons-domestic-counterterrorism

 

Well Obama identified those countries and then implemented more extreme vetting procedures, so what Trump is supposedly asking for has already been done.

Do you guys think people have been freely coming to the US without being vetted?  If so, where is all the evidence of terrorists coming in when you have no attacks being committed in the Us from people on Trump's list?

Face it, the EO was hastily written, poorly thought through and rushed onto Dump's desk.

[ICEMAN!]

1 minute ago, 02sled said:

Because both Canada and the US are doing a piss poor job of vetting those that simply claim I am a refugee. No papers, no ID, no documentation, just their word that they are good people. What can happen in Germany can happen in North America. The major manifestation is that Germany has larger numbers of refugees due to proximity.

I guess you'd have a point if what you're saying is true, but it isn't so sit down and STFU stupid.

[02sled]

3 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

I guess you'd have a point if what you're saying is true, but it isn't so sit down and STFU stupid.

You're speaking out your ass as usual. So screw off until you have something valid to say dumbass. The challenge being faced in vetting a refugee claimant from i.e. Syria is that they conveniently lose all their ID, any papers showing who they are, where they were born, where they came from or even their names. Funny how they conveniently lose all those important things but manage to have and hang onto things like cell phones. They go for screening and tell you whatever they feel like. Try contacting the Syrian government for validation of their claims. You could have a serial killer, sitting in front of you and with current screening protocols know way of validating it.

[Momorider]

6 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Well Obama identified those countries and then implemented more extreme vetting procedures, so what Trump is supposedly asking for has already been done.

Do you guys think people have been freely coming to the US without being vetted?  If so, where is all the evidence of terrorists coming in when you have no attacks being committed in the Us from people on Trump's list?

Face it, the EO was hastily written, poorly thought through and rushed onto Dump's desk.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/08/white-house-fires-back-at-immigration-order-critics-with-list-terror-arrests.html