Federal appeals court largely maintains freeze of Trump’s travel ban

a reply to: daskakik

Oh those people...The ones the last adminstration went to great lengths to avoid using Muslim/Islamic extremists to describe when they did perpetrate attacks here...

a reply to: RickyD

Not those those, those were already in. The new ones.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

I'm sure the militias would love that plan.

Especially if they are paid and given written proof its only for 90 days exactly under penalty of law if they go over it.

a reply to: yuppa

Right, they will just totally believe that.

a reply to: daskakik

🤔...😅

a reply to: RickyD

All I see is three dots with placeholders on either end. Hope they are beers and the three dots imply an infinite amount.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I don't think the left will be happy until we have weekly terrorist attacks like Europe.

You got that straight.
I am sure there are plenty of them here already though.
The terrorists are dancing a jig over these clowns ruling on the ban.
If you are going to a concert in the near future, watch your asses.

I am just glad guys like you aren't in charge...

Seriously. The attack in the UK was by a UK Born citizen..

If the travel Ban made us safer it would be one thing. But all it does is affirm terrorist propaganda so Trump can jerk off his base.

The travel ban actually makes us less safe for the sake of political pandering..

Apart from that, the ban violates the constitution of the united states...Remember that thing? The thing Right wingers pretended they understood and cared about?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for continuing the travel ban is at this point. It was supposed to be a temporary 100 day measure. If it were implemented when first proposed, it would be over already.

The idea was that it would be a temporary action while more stringent vetting procedures were put in place. Shouldn't those procedures be in place now, making the whole idea of a travel ban pointless?

Going to the supreme court and then the waterworks start. Congrats on your big victory against vetting days after a bunch of kids got blown up by Libyans.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for continuing the travel ban is at this point. It was supposed to be a temporary 100 day measure. If it were implemented when first proposed, it would be over already.

The idea was that it would be a temporary action while more stringent vetting procedures were put in place. Shouldn't those procedures be in place now, making the whole idea of a travel ban pointless?

The ban is worthless now. If #heads wanted to get in they're probably already here thanks to the progressives. It's still pretty important that we establish he has the absolute authority, as Obama had, to ban travel and immigration for reasons of national security. He has access to classified information. Some liberal judge in SF who's blocking it because he thinks Trumps a jerk doesn't and has no authority under actual law to block it just cause he's a jerk. There's no way this BS survives the supreme court.

originally posted by: PepeTalk
Going to the supreme court and then the waterworks start. Congrats on your big victory against vetting days after a bunch of kids got blown up by Libyans.

The ban was a temporary measure in order to get better vetting in place. They had 90 days to do so, and by all apperances didn't even try. Thus with or without the ban, we would be in the same situation now. This ban is ridiculous at this point, because if government worked as Trump claims it does, those better procedures would already be in place rendering a temporary ban pointless.

originally posted by: PepeTalk

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for continuing the travel ban is at this point. It was supposed to be a temporary 100 day measure. If it were implemented when first proposed, it would be over already.

The idea was that it would be a temporary action while more stringent vetting procedures were put in place. Shouldn't those procedures be in place now, making the whole idea of a travel ban pointless?

The ban is worthless now. If #heads wanted to get in they're probably already here thanks to the progressives. It's still pretty important that we establish he has the absolute authority, as Obama had, to ban travel and immigration for reasons of national security. He has access to classified information. Some liberal judge in SF who's blocking it because he thinks Trumps a jerk doesn't and has no authority under actual law to block it just cause he's a jerk. There's no way this BS survives the supreme court.

Would it matter if it did? We've already passed the expiration date of the original order. A better, non ban system is supposed to be in place by now. Why didn't they go ahead with that regardless of the EO?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: PepeTalk

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for continuing the travel ban is at this point. It was supposed to be a temporary 100 day measure. If it were implemented when first proposed, it would be over already.

The idea was that it would be a temporary action while more stringent vetting procedures were put in place. Shouldn't those procedures be in place now, making the whole idea of a travel ban pointless?

The ban is worthless now. If #heads wanted to get in they're probably already here thanks to the progressives. It's still pretty important that we establish he has the absolute authority, as Obama had, to ban travel and immigration for reasons of national security. He has access to classified information. Some liberal judge in SF who's blocking it because he thinks Trumps a jerk doesn't and has no authority under actual law to block it just cause he's a jerk. There's no way this BS survives the supreme court.

Would it matter if it did? We've already passed the expiration date of the original order. A better, non ban system is supposed to be in place by now. Why didn't they go ahead with that regardless of the EO?

Did you even read my comment? You quoted it so I'm assuming you did

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why would we want members of failed states with deplorable human rights records and a religion and culture that is largely incompatible with ours here? You being a liberal should hate these people for what they do to LGBT people, women and minority groups and then you question why they blow themselves up in jihad. The experiment failed.

Sorry. I don't attach qualifiers to the right to religious freedom. As long as they obey our laws, I'm good. This has nothing to do with being a liberal either.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for continuing the travel ban is at this point. It was supposed to be a temporary 100 day measure. If it were implemented when first proposed, it would be over already.

The idea was that it would be a temporary action while more stringent vetting procedures were put in place. Shouldn't those procedures be in place now, making the whole idea of a travel ban pointless?

Shhhhh... Logic to them is like sunlight to vampires.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

US Federal government still control the issuing of visas, only those that obtained visas before the Banning can still come in.

New visas are been control.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: avgguy
How is it a Muslim ban?

Because Trump called it one during the election. Though you could always read the OP article and actually deny some ignorance:

During oral arguments this month, many of the 4th Circuit judges expressed doubts about the viability of the president’s order. They questioned whether there was a link between barring of citizens from the six countries identified by the administration and ensuring U.S. security.

Several judges also pointed to the president’s campaign promise to bar Muslims from entry and subsequent statements. They suggested that the court should not ignore those comments when determining whether the order violates the Constitution. The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from denigrating a particular religion.

A Ban would include ALL not just some Op. Once again we need the word of the law not a spirit. Murder cases depend on the words being followed exactly dont they?

Nice try. The courts didn't buy that reasoning either. I don't know why you'd think telling it to me will change things or make you think you are validated. At the end of the day the ban is still overturned because Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims on the campaign trail. He also had that VERY message up on his campaign website well after the lawsuit for the second ban had started. It wasn't until the courts pointed out that it was still up that it suddenly got taken down. Too bad for Trump that the internet doesn't forget.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

US Federal government still control the issuing of visas, only those that obtained visas before the Banning can still come in.

New visas are been control.

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump is controlling the issuing of new visas.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump is controlling the issuing of new visas.

He still has to obey the law. That means he cannot deny based on this travel ban or because they are Muslim.