Trump's Travel Ban

[Bible_Belt]

Moreover, so what if we profile the highest probability attackers for vetting?

Sure, let's just make it illegal to be a follower of Mohammed.

There's that pesky 1st Amendment standing in the way though:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's what is required to change that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

All you need is 2/3 of both houses of congress, and 3/4 of the states to get behind the idea. Then we can repeal the 1st Amendment and lock up all the Muslims. Yay! Happy Day!!!!

 

[Bible_Belt]

There you go again, with your alternative facts approach to the law. Courts have repeatedly rejected profiling by race or religion. The 1st Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, means what the courts say it means. If Bannon had consulted any of the white house staff attorneys before he wrote Trump's travel ban, then they would have told him all of the same things I have been saying here.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I disagree with the court all the time. I think Citizens United is our modern day Dred Scott - Corporations are not people; that's a dumb idea. Raich v Ashcroft said that handing your neighbor a bad of weed is interstate commerce...another dumb idea. Hell, Roe v Wade reads like they were tripping acid when they wrote their opinions. I still have no idea what they were talking about in most of it.

But just because you lose the game doesn't mean that you throw a tantrum, smash up the room, call everyone a cheater and then say the rules are crooked and that you didn't really lose, at least in your own little world of alternative facts.

 

[Bible_Belt]

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09...cute-vicious-executive-order-on-deportations/

Art Acevedo, chief of police for the city of Houston, shared Stephens’s concerns, telling The Intercept that implicit in Trump’s messaging were two false notions. The first is that undocumented immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime — experts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not, and Acevedo said his decades of law enforcement experience supported those conclusions. And second is the suggestion that local and state law enforcement aren’t already focused on arresting individuals who violate criminal laws.


“We are charged with keeping people safe from predators and from thieves and from violent members of society,” Acevedo explained. “We’re not charged with going out and wasting and spending our very limited resources booking a day laborer or somebody that, but for their immigration status, have done nothing that would harm our society.”


Rather than engaging in “political theater” designed to please its base, Acevedo suggested the administration instead listen to the concerns of local and state law enforcement executives on the ground, who have long rejected seeing their officers used as de facto deportation forces.


“Sadly, if these type of ill-advised, poorly thought out public polices were to go through — where they try to take away my ability to control the workforce, to control the priorities of my workforce — there are going to be unintended consequences and those unintended consequences are going to result in additional crime,” Acevedo said.


“You cannot be the party of law and order and not listen to your police chiefs and your police executives,” he added. “You can’t. Doesn’t add up.”

 

[Trunks]

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09...cute-vicious-executive-order-on-deportations/

Read an article about the appeals court hearing Trump's case. It said something along the lines of Trump being correct for the most part that non-citizens have no legal rights to due process, but that changes once illegal immigrants are living on US soil. That made no sense to me, so would anyone elaborate why that is so, if it is?

 

[YawataNoKami]

I agree with President Trump. This is temporary ban and in time the system will work better to vet everyone coming into our country the right way. All of this insanity and hate is just stupid.

Obama banned these countries first. But it's ok because he did it, right? So sick of the double standards and hypocrisy from the left and their ultra-liberal minions.

Anything he does will be met with harsh criticism from the left... let's be honest about that at least. And the liberals will lose vote over their extreme hatred. Can't wait for the midterms.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Read an article about the appeals court hearing Trump's case. It said something along the lines of Trump being correct for the most part that non-citizens have no legal rights to due process, but that changes once illegal immigrants are living on US soil. That made no sense to me, so would anyone elaborate why that is so, if it is?

Illegal immigrants still have the rights that we consider to be basic human rights, which include due process.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/general-immigration/legal-rights-of-illegal-immigrants.html
Even if you're in the United States without permission or proper immigration documents, various sections of the U.S. Constitution apply to you. There is a particularly important provision of the Fourteenth Amendment stating that, "No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

An undocumented immigrant is definitely a "person." In brief, this means that you are owed such procedural rights as a jury trial and the right to defend yourself against the charges if arrested; and if someone sues you over a civil matter, that you have the right to receive notice and to defend yourself in court.

Various criminal charge-related amendments to the Constitution (including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 14th) also apply. These protect undocumented immigrants against unlawful search and seizure by law enforcement authorities (without probable cause and a warrant for such an action) and against self-incrimination.

Undocumented immigrants have the right to file lawsuits, such as discrimination suits, in federal court. State laws vary, but some jurisdictions give an undocumented immigrant the right to sue in state court, as well.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

There is nothing wrong with profiling, especially religious profiling. Stereotypes are based on a large degree of truths, and shrieking "But not all!!!!!!" is a flimsy argument. Religious profiling is logical and intelligent. And moderate Muslims need to direct their ire away from the west for our "discrimination", and redirect toward their own community for making them look bad. Notice how so few of them ever do that??? Which moderate Muslim being profiled at an airport mutters about hating ISIS under his breath? No, he mutters about "Islamophobia"

Bible, if you had the middle seat on a plane, the aisle guy was Amish and the window guy was Muslim, who do you think would be more likely to bomb the plane? You understand, and it's not "racist" for the TSA to understand that either. Muslims SHOULD be profiled at airports as long as they commit >90% of worldwide terrorism. Black males SHOULD be profiled in dark alleys as long as they commit 53% of all murders. And just to even the playing field, affluent white males SHOULD be profiled on tax audits because they likely commit the most amount of tax evasion. Happy now?

No, following Muhammad shouldn't be "illegal". But he was a pedophile killer, so it should make you the target for extra scrutiny, and that includes the white convert to Islam (even more so, because he wasn't born into the death cult)

 

[Bible_Belt]

There is nothing wrong with profiling, especially religious profiling. Stereotypes are based on a large degree of truths, and shrieking "But not all!!!!!!" is a flimsy argument. Religious profiling is logical and intelligent.

It's not legal, though. Modern courts have always ruled that profiling denies an individual equal protection under the law.

Speaking of legal, Trump just lost the appeal of his last loss:
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/318327-appeals-court-rejects-trump-on-travel-ban

A San Francisco-based appeals court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s request to resume his executive action on immigration and refugees, setting up a potential showdown in the Supreme Court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously that a nationwide restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban may continue while a federal judge considers a lawsuit over the policy.

"We hold that the government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay," the court said.

The three-judge panel hearing the case included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.

"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree," they wrote.

"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Worshiping Muhammad is identical to worshipp

It's not legal, though. Modern courts have always ruled that profiling denies an individual equal protection under the law.

Speaking of legal, Trump just lost the appeal of his last loss:
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/318327-appeals-court-rejects-trump-on-travel-ban

A San Francisco-based appeals court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s request to resume his executive action on immigration and refugees, setting up a potential showdown in the Supreme Court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously that a nationwide restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban may continue while a federal judge considers a lawsuit over the policy.

"We hold that the government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay," the court said.

The three-judge panel hearing the case included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.

"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree," they wrote.

"In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."

Whether it's illegal or not, it's being done at airports all across the country. Muslim men and women are getting profiled more than Finnish men or Japanese grandmothers. And that's a logical thing.

But don't just blanket profile all Muslims. Profile the Muslim 70 year old grandmother and 5 year old baby significantly less than the 23 year old male or 40 year old woman in a burka.

 

[Bible_Belt]

completely legal to punish citizens based on race.

If you're talking about the way being black makes a defendant much more likely to get the death penalty, then yes, McCleskey v Kemp said that is perfectly legal: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/84-6811

 

[BlueAlpha1]

completely legal to punish citizens based on race.

If you're talking about the way being black makes a defendant much more likely to get the death penalty, then yes, McCleskey v Kemp said that is perfectly legal: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/84-6811

"More likely" is vague gibberish and rarely compares apples to apples.

It's like the crack vs. powder cocaine argument. They claim both races use their respective drug at the same rate but blacks get arrested more often, but the conclusion doesn't take into account prior criminal history, the initial arrest (blacks are "more likely" to attack a police officer and make up 37% of cop killers), quality of representation, etc.

You can't conduct the scientific method and come to a conclusion without a variable...

How about this one? Whites are disproportionately killed by police. Twice as many whites as blacks were killed by cops last year, despite blacks committing 1,000 total more murders (about 5,000 to 4,000) That is 13% of the population committed 20% more total murders than 63%. Were these whites punished with the death penalty because of their race?

 

[Bible_Belt]

You do know white people get racially profiled, too, right? Talk to any big-city cop off the record, and they will admit when they see a white face in a black neighborhood, their first thought is that the white guy is there to buy drugs. If you think Muslims should get profiled at airports, then the same thing applies to you the next time you are in a minority neighborhood. Is it ok for a cop to pull you over and search you just because you are white? It is certainly logical and intelligent in some circumstances. That doesn't make it legal.

 

[Von]

Fact:

There is more white on white, black on black, indian on indian, jew on jew, christians on christians, muslims on muslims, latinos on lationos, terrorism on terrorism crime than the reverse....

All around the ''ethnic'' stuff is getting better in term of tolerance... its just sad we see medias portraying ''ethnicities based religions'' when religions are an ideology that disregard geography and ethnicities

Remember Peace is said twice more than War in the Coran

Remember there is only 1 race... the human race

Remember if you shoot someone expect to be shooted back

Time to make the World Great Again

 

[BlueAlpha1]

There is more white on white, black on black, indian on indian, jew on jew, christians on christians, muslims on muslims, latinos on lationos, terrorism on terrorism crime than the reverse....

Totally irrelevant and not the point. The point is the TOTALS. So,

82% of anti white crime is committed by other white people.
93% of anti black crime is committed by other black people.

BUT, when interracial crime DOES occur, black on white crime is 10x more common than the inverse. See the difference?

(And FYI, 93% is still substantially higher than 82%...)

Remember Peace is said twice more than War in the Coran

Remember, the Quran references killing the infidel 131 times.

Remember, just because there are peaceful Muslims doesn't mean Islam is a religion of peace.
How do I know? Because Jainism, a real religion of peace, has ZERO terrorists. No matter how hard you try, the ideology of Jainism cannot be "twisted" to justify terrorism. The Quran can, and you don't have to try that hard.

Remember there is only 1 race... the human race

That's true. We are all Africans. The problem is nobody actually believes or understands this, so it's a moot point.

Remember if you shoot someone expect to be shooted back

Another potshot at America, basically we are the reason Islam hates us?

Right, because Muhammad wasn't conquering, enslaving, and raping everyone around him 1,500 years ago, the Ottoman Empire wasn't doing it 500 years ago, there hasn't been perennial war in India and aggression against Hindus (all before America existed), and there are no terror attacks in a totally innocent, non-interventionist country like Brussels today...

Time to make the World Great Again

I'm just curious, do you think Iran is not a rogue state that is sword rattling the west? Do you want them to get a bomb? Do you know they fight wars all the time through proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon? Do you know they have billboards that say death to America? Do you know they hang homosexuals from cranes like it's the year 400 AD in Arabia?

Can you believe this stuff @Danger ??

 

[Ronaldo7]

Trump needs to maintain his formidable frame. He has set out to fulfill his promises with all of his might.

The travel ban is a necessary measure to implement. He has never stated all muslims are terrorists.

However, those seven countries are the birthplace to the vast majority of extremists. He needs to persevere through the obstacles thrown at him.

 

[Trunks]

Illegal immigrants still have the rights that we consider to be basic human rights, which include due process.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/general-immigration/legal-rights-of-illegal-immigrants.html
Even if you're in the United States without permission or proper immigration documents, various sections of the U.S. Constitution apply to you. There is a particularly important provision of the Fourteenth Amendment stating that, "No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

An undocumented immigrant is definitely a "person." In brief, this means that you are owed such procedural rights as a jury trial and the right to defend yourself against the charges if arrested; and if someone sues you over a civil matter, that you have the right to receive notice and to defend yourself in court.

Various criminal charge-related amendments to the Constitution (including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 14th) also apply. These protect undocumented immigrants against unlawful search and seizure by law enforcement authorities (without probable cause and a warrant for such an action) and against self-incrimination.

Undocumented immigrants have the right to file lawsuits, such as discrimination suits, in federal court. State laws vary, but some jurisdictions give an undocumented immigrant the right to sue in state court, as well.

Thanks for clarifying.

So, now that the appeals court did not re-instate the ban, is it looking like it is dead in the water? If it moves to the Supreme Court before Gorsuch is confirmed, it could just end in a tie, whereas with Gorsuch it would seem he would rule against Trump.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The two recent rulings against the ban have been on a preliminary motion, and an appeal of that motion. But the case isn't over. They will go back to district court to now have the actual case. It is still possible for Trump to win that case in district court - either way there will be an appeal of that decision by whatever side loses. Cases this important do often get fast-tracked straight to the Supremes, but I don't think they will do so until Gorsuch gets on the court. And a lot of scholars are guessing he would rule against Trump on the ban, but that's just a guess. No one knows for sure.

 

[Von]

I am totally ok with that, you are not ok with data driven actions?

This is exactly why socialist countries fail over time, they are based on feelings, not data. You and your supporters are now trying to make the same mistake with terrorism.

Moreover, you still dodge the point constantly. How is it Constitutional to punish citizems for being white but UnConstitutional to profile non-citizens for religion? Which btw is NOT what Trump was doing.

What's your data? Data don't lie... people do based on their emotions

We did post here that no terrorist came from the banned countries

Actually Saudi Arabia who finances ISIS is still an American ally, Iran who support Syria with the Russian got banned

Anyway, the countries that were ''ban'' have no governement per say, they are all failed states (except Iran)

And the ban is constested by Technology compagnies because it prevent them from getting high skilled engineers and research at minimun wage, like 50k... instead of American equivalent at 100k.

Iran ban was mostly due to Israel lobbying and also... if USA universities are like Canadian universities at least 40% of the Engineering, Law and Medical faculties are composed of Iranians descent

 

[Bible_Belt]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318973-trump-officials-scramble-after-travel-ban-defeat

The Trump administration is weighing its options after an appeals court ruling against the president’s executive action on immigration, including the possibility of rewriting the order.

...the appeals court ruling threw more than one obstacle in the administration’s path. It also asserted that even non-residents who have never been to the U.S., like refugees, are still entitled to due process rights — such as providing notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. The court suggested that the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment are not limited to U.S. citizens.