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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Probably that most people haven't figured out what those EOs actually mean.

Or what parts were meaningless by design.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah I'm TOTALLY sure that Trump wrote an EO specifically to tie the courts up then bellow and complain when it happens.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah I'm TOTALLY sure that Trump wrote an EO specifically to tie the courts up then bellow and complain when it happens.

See, now you are convincing yourself.

a reply to: xuenchen

Lol. Yeah. Let's go with that.

This is all playing right into Trump's hands. If (when) there is a terrorist attack, or foreigners are arrested in a sting before carrying out an attack, Trump is going to get on TV and say he tried to put in place measures to prevent it but rogue Democrat judges and the fake news media prevented them from happening.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I guess Trump broke another promise, even though it was completely out of his hands on what some judge decides.

If the President doesn't want to uphold the Constitution then the Justice Department will. Good old checks and balances.

And before you counter with something about how it was totally constitutional, it wasn't. It specifically targeted religion by giving favoritism to Christians and blocking Muslims.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t
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?

This is an excellent point!
My guess is since the travel ban was found to be unconstitutional than a Muslim registry would be out of the question now.

originally posted by: PepeTalk
It's still pretty important that we establish he (Trump) has the absolute authority...
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.

Wrong! They do have the authority and this is the 4th circuit court of appeals, which is in Richmond, Virginia, not some judge in San Francisco.

There's no way this BS survives the supreme court.

Perhaps we shall see.
I agree with you on one thing, the travel ban is worthless. The question now is where is this new and improved vetting process?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution that states that we can't choose what other country's citizens we let in. It states that the freedom of religion shall not be legislated or established by government.

If a President wrote an executive order stating that you couldn't be a muslim in the united states, it would be illegal. Not allowing foreign nationals who are muslims into the US is NOT saying anyone in the states cannot practice islam.

That is a judicial overreach and needs to be nipped in the bud.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution that states that we can't choose what other country's citizens we let in. It states that the freedom of religion shall not be legislated or established by government.

This isn't why the travel ban was overturned. Talking about this shows that you don't care about the legal reasonings for overturning the ban. You are just substituting your own argument instead. It has been stated over and over that the ban was overturned due to Trump's words about banning Muslims. The courts ruled that Trump's words on the matter apply to the case. You can bitch and moan about it all day, but that isn't going to change the fact that Trump's words tainted the travel ban's Constitutionality.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely this.

a reply to: Masterjaden

The judge specifically cited the language Trump used on the campaign trail and applied it to the proposed travel ban. His conclusion and the conclusion of the appeals court is that the intention is clearly targeting Muslims.

According to the very first amendment of our Constitution, that's a no go. We, as a country, do not discriminate against individuals based on their religious creed. Period.

originally posted by: Jefferton

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

That's extremely ignorant. Enjoy the stars.

You would think that since you're a leftist, your peers would be more generous handing out free stars. I guess the right are more generous than the left. It's either that or I actually have great points when I post compared to your butt-hurt reaction to my star count. Thanks for pointing it out though, I didn't realize how successful I've been gathering stars in the past few months.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No you don't understand what I said. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents leaders from preventing non-citizens from coming into the country based on their religion. The freedom of religion is about government preventing citizens from practicing their religion by passing legislation that either bans a religion or establishes one.

There is absolutely NOTHING in this Executive order that prevents anyone in America from practicing their religion.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

No. I understood what you said 100% and I told you it doesn't matter. Trump's words are what made it unconstitutional and you are ignoring that.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Jefferton

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

That's extremely ignorant. Enjoy the stars.

You would think that since you're a leftist, your peers would be more generous handing out free stars. I guess the right are more generous than the left. It's either that or I actually have great points when I post compared to your butt-hurt reaction to my star count. Thanks for pointing it out though, I didn't realize how successful I've been gathering stars in the past few months.

Whoa! Ego alert! Backup guys we got a big roller here who gets tons of stars!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

He didnt do it because they were muslim to begin with. all people from those countries were included. Thats not ethinicist at all.

And No the letter of the law was what was originally followed until some whimpy SJW decided to make laws softer for the criminals. But technically thats the way it is.

But if we are now using past comments to dictate future actions thats totally unfair and you ar ebeing tried for things in th epast that have no relevancy. Its like holding you to a third strike for littering 20 yrs prior.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Jefferton

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

That's extremely ignorant. Enjoy the stars.

You would think that since you're a leftist, your peers would be more generous handing out free stars. I guess the right are more generous than the left. It's either that or I actually have great points when I post compared to your butt-hurt reaction to my star count. Thanks for pointing it out though, I didn't realize how successful I've been gathering stars in the past few months.

Whoa! Ego alert! Backup guys we got a big roller here who gets tons of stars!

I'm not surprised that you didn't get the sarcasm. No wonder CNN is so successful with their viewers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I"m NOT ignoring that, he can bar non citizens for religious reasons. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the constitution that prevents him from doing so.

He can't prevent people IN this country from practicing their religion. He can bar any non-citizen from entering for any reason he deems fit. The only argument that the courts could make is that by choosing not to allow them to enter based on their religion, he's establishing an official religion, but that's ludicrous. You can't establish a religion by barring a specific one.

If you think that the founding fathers intended for people to be able to practice luciferianism and allow non citizens who are luciferians to enter this country, you need to lay off whatever you've been smoking.

Jaden

originally posted by: DevinoThis is an excellent point!
My guess is since the travel ban was found to be unconstitutional than a Muslim registry would be out of the question now.

The travel ban was supposed to follow into "extreme vetting" which was never really defined. The problem is, we have the harshest vetting process of any developed nation on Earth. Trump talked up extreme vetting, but he never really followed through with any ideas we could be doing that we aren't currently.

I suspect he wanted the travel ban, then he wanted the issue to go away with him simply saying agencies are vetting people. Instead the ban was opposed, he's done nothing on more stringent vetting procedures, and the whole thing has been revealed as the dog and pony show that it is.

The TEMPORARY travel ban is 100% irrelevant to anything lasting impact Trump actually has. He can move forward with his agenda without it, and whether or not it's in place means nothing. It's just a rallying cry, something symbolic for people to show they oppose him it's not actually a lasting piece of policy.

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.

This IS NOT A MUSLIM BAN. But guess what? Even if it was it would be perfectly legal first of all...

The president's authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."


Did you catch that part where it says "any class"? You see that includes any religious group.

Secondly, the Constitution of the United States of America ONLY applies to U.S. citizens. The only time it would apply to non citizens is if the non citizen was standing on U.S. soil. THAT IS FACT.

Applying the U.S. Constitution in the case of the OP is absolutely ludicrous. If you want to afford the people that would be affected by the ban the rights of the U.S. Constitution then what's stopping us from affording them to the people of North Korea? How about the people in Syria? Is there absolute free speech in China? Why not? Let's enforce the Constitution of the U.S. worldwide right?

Anyone that thinks this is a Muslim ban is obviously ignorant if they think the Supreme Court is going to apply the U.S. Constitution to non U.S. citizens abroad.