• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump calls it a travel ban — lawyers call it sabotage

Zyphlin said:
Now, aside from that, this is yet another dumb move involving Trump and Twitter and Conway's husband is right. Him tweeting about something about to go before the SCOTUS, especially tweeting something that contradicts what his own justice department is trying to argue, is absolutely not helpful to him or his cause in any fashion.
Click to expand...

This we can agree on. I know Trump does this because of his Populist lean needing to reassure and get reassurance from his "base" among the populace.

I find his Tweets annoyingly detrimental to his agenda, and he would be better served if he would cut that crap out regardless of how he might think it "helps" with his general base.
 
WCH said:
If it were any other POTUS, this would be law now. The fact that Trump phrased it in a certain way on the campaign stump made people like Justice Ginsburg get an attitude against him.
Click to expand...

Which, still, is somewhat laughable.

The SCOTUS blatantly ignores President Obama's admin stating "its not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax" over and over again to turn around and go "what he claims doesn't matter, the law is a tax and thus we will rule on it as such"

Where now all of a sudden it's "what the law is doesn't matter, his claims is it's a muslim ban and thus we will rule it as such"

Apparently, what you claim to want or what your claim to be doing, in the name of political messaging, only matters if it can be used to justify the conclusion you wish to reach.
 
holbritter said:
I don't remember people arguing that it's not a ban. I believe the argument was that it wasn't a Muslim ban, but a temporary travel ban. The "temporary" was always left out of the hysteria on the left side. The courts have objected to what they see as a "Muslim" ban.

Someone else posted that the Supreme Court is against bans, but I couldn't find anything to back that up without a qualifying reason, so I don't get where people are saying the courts object to "bans". We "ban" a lot of things.
Click to expand...

Good point. It was sold as a "temporary travel ban" so that we can improve our vetting procedures. I remember alot of people saying we need 90 days of the travel ban to get new procedures in place to be safe. Well Trump has been in more than 90 days, can you tell me what changes to procedures they have considered or are considering? Or if they've even tried to make any changes?
 
upsideguy said:
You do realize that referring to it, at this stage, as "temporary" only hurts the case. The idea of the ban was that the Trump administration needed to act quickly to stop the inflow of people from certain countries to ensure correct vetting was in place before it could be resumed. The time is of the essence provision of central to the need for the 90 day ban.

For them to have a remote chance of prevailing on this, they would have to show they proceeded to quickly to study vetting ("put their money where there mouth was"). Even though they were denied this particular lever, the problem should have been unchanged, including the sense or urgency. Since the 90 days has long since passed, they would have to show they still needed the relief of the immigration system provided by the ban because, despite their diligence, they still need more time that only the travel ban will provide. Worrying about "temporary" at this point is not a winning strategy.

Of course, that was before Trump just self-incriminated the case by telling us its simply an act of bigotry.

I love the way you show us how to win, Donnie. You are such a winner.
Click to expand...

What they need to argue is that the law permits the president to issue and enforce such an EO.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This we can agree on. I know Trump does this because of his Populist lean needing to reassure and get reassurance from his "base" among the populace.

I find his Tweets annoyingly detrimental to his agenda, and he would be better served if he would cut that crap out regardless of how he might think it "helps" with his general base.
Click to expand...

Honestly, your post before this is why this annoys me so much honestly. Even if Hawkeye's ridiculous reading of this holds water...that Trump has basically said "I'm going to lose, so **** it"...that's incredibly infuriating but sadly not surprising from this man. This is not about TRUMP, this is not about his followers, this isn't even about this ban. This is about the separation of powers and the abilities of the President. And while I have not been a fan of a lot of the expansion of Presidential powers into realms where I do not believe they belong, this is actually a place of Presidential power that frankly belongs in the hands of the office of the President. To have the sitting POTUS essentially undermining his own justice department in the run up to a SCOTUS case that is going to set significant precedent regarding a Presidential power is frustrating to a grand extent. Or, I should say, it would be if I hadn't basically divested any true hope or significant expectations for ANYTHING worthwhile or useful once the general election cycle truly began.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Good point. It was sold as a "temporary travel ban" so that we can improve our vetting procedures. I remember alot of people saying we need 90 days of the travel ban to get new procedures in place to be safe. Well Trump has been in more than 90 days, can you tell me what changes to procedures they have considered or are considering? Or if they've even tried to make any changes?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But those are political questions. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.
 
Angelus said:
Trump calls it a travel ban ? lawyers call it sabotage | TheHill

In a series of 140-character barbs, Trump on Monday complained his administration had created a “watered down, politically correct version” of the executive order he originally signed temporarily banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. ***

George Conway, a prominent attorney who is married to senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, wrote on Twitter that the president’s tweets “may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help [the Office of the Solicitor General] get 5 votes in [the Supreme Court], which is what actually matters. Sad.”

***

“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.,” Trump tweeted, while urging the department to work on a “much tougher version in the meantime.”

Like lawyers at the Justice Department, Trump’s top aides have insisted that the policy is not a travel ban. “It’s not a Muslim ban. It’s not a travel ban,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Jan. 31. “It’s a vetting system to keep America safe.”

But Trump on Monday made it clear he disagrees.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump tweeted


So the Trump-pets have been arguing that this is not a ban - NOT A BAN! No Ban Here - move along.

Then just at the critical point of the current appeal, Trump announces to the world he regrets that the Justice Department force him to make this weak PC version of a ban, and he intends to go for a ban with real teeth. They guy just does not seem to get it. He is a president - not an emperor or a king. We live in a constitutional democracy where there are three co-equal branches of govt. The court system will not go away because he wants it to.

Trump is incapable of getting anything done because he can't accept the fact that others have a say in what happens. A Travel Ban is exactly what the courts have objected to - it is exactly what the justice department has insisted doesn't exist.

This guy just gives a new meaning to stupid.
Click to expand...

Who has been arguing it's not a travel ban?

What else should it be called?

The President is fulfilling his sworn duty to protect the welfare of the citizens who elected him to office by using the powers of his office to ban travel from countries that harbor and support terrorists and terrorism.

It's not a Muslim Travel ban, and will never be, despite the lies and hyperbole of the intellectually vacant and their MSM partners.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Fair enough. But those are political questions. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was responding to a political point about how the left is mischaracterizing it and pointing out that there was good reason to not trust the Trump administration when they are blatant liars on anything and everything.

This issue is fairly complicated. Trump is almost purposefully trying to shoot himself in the foot. I think he wants the court to shoot it down so he can rally his base and cause mayhem. I don't know anymore. I get that the president has a **** ton of power regarding immigration and travel, but to continually express that you have ulterior motives and just hiding them behind legaleze in a slimy way is just idiotic. I mean, the government has the right to build and manage infrastructure and it's completely legal for the government to claim eminent domain to take someones property but there's a big different between the following 2 scenarios:

1. The government using eminent domain with no ulterior motives in order to buy some houses from people and build a highway through the land.

2. A guy running for mayor or governor or whatever campaigns for a year while saying every week that he is going to use eminent domain to demo run down neighborhoods full of minorities so they will have to move elsewhere and the city's property value will go up. Once in office he devises a plan that just so happens to require the demolition of 2 neighborhoods, both of them poorer and mostly minority owned. All the while he is trying to demo these neighborhoods he's going around explaining that this really has nothing to do with what he said during the campaign and that this is just a necessity in order for the city to function properly because that land is needed for new highways and water etc. And he's only demoing 2 of the poor neighborhoods instead of demoing all of them so it's nothing like what he said on the campaign trail.

Now, even if it's legal for the government to do #2, we all have to admit that the fact that the theoretical candidate has tainted any chance of actually getting it done and that it feels incredibly immoral to go through with it regardless of what excuses he comes up with. And I think I'd be lying if I said that although I might be against the plan regardless of who presented it, I definitely wouldn't be able to not think about what the politician said throughout the campaign in scenario 2 while contemplating the issue.

Note: I'm not saying that Trump is just like the guy trying to demolish minority neighborhoods. I wanted to pick a scenario that I think everyone could agree that the intent behind the policy was immoral and it was the best I could come up with. I'm also not saying that a travel ban is the exact equivalent of kicking someone out of their house.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Good point. It was sold as a "temporary travel ban" so that we can improve our vetting procedures. I remember alot of people saying we need 90 days of the travel ban to get new procedures in place to be safe. Well Trump has been in more than 90 days, can you tell me what changes to procedures they have considered or are considering? Or if they've even tried to make any changes?
Click to expand...

Part of the vetting process that was to be updated was dependent on the temporary travel ban being implemented. It was also meant to force those countries to give better intel on the people that the US requested information on. Something which has apparently been seriously lacking. Essentially it was a "Start giving us the information we request or no more of your people will be allowed to come to the US.
 
ocean515 said:
Who has been arguing it's not a travel ban?

What else should it be called?

The President is fulfilling his sworn duty to protect the welfare of the citizens who elected him to office by using the powers of his office to ban travel from countries that harbor and support terrorists and terrorism.

It's not a Muslim Travel ban, and will never be, despite the lies and hyperbole of the intellectually vacant and their MSM partners.
Click to expand...

His original travel ban was for 90 days so that they could create new "extreme" vetting procedures.

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
Click to expand...

It's been 129 days from the original order. If this were important then why hasn't he created new vetting procedures in the mean time? Has he changed anything regarding our process at all? Can you name a single thing he's done to ensure that the process is better? If not, then wouldn't you say that he's not fulfilling these duties since he is claiming that our procedures are putting us in danger and at the same time doing nothing to alter them?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Part of the vetting process that was to be updated was dependent on the temporary travel ban being implemented.
Click to expand...
If they alter the vetting process just start it on new people being vetted. He's a smart and savvy business guy right? Does he have to shut his hotel down to change the mattresses or maybe he should just change them out room by room as they are empty?

Can you elaborate on exactly what part can't be done without a travel ban?


Kal'Stang said:
It was also meant to force those countries to give better intel on the people that the US requested information on. Something which has apparently been seriously lacking. Essentially it was a "Start giving us the information we request or no more of your people will be allowed to come to the US.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should try "You need to start providing this info within 60 days or we will halt immigration from your citizens" without trapping innocent people at airports and away from their families. But that's just me. None of this that I can see requires a travel ban that begins immediately while people that live in the US are on planes travelling and stuck in limbo.
 
countryboy said:
Trump doesn't make me 1/10 as nervous as the treacherous modern lib.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, look how you people talk.

The treacherous modern lib. You really do think the world works like comic books or children's cartoons.
 
roughdraft274 said:
His original travel ban was for 90 days so that they could create new "extreme" vetting procedures.



It's been 129 days from the original order. If this were important then why hasn't he created new vetting procedures in the mean time? Has he changed anything regarding our process at all? Can you name a single thing he's done to ensure that the process is better? If not, then wouldn't you say that he's not fulfilling these duties since he is claiming that our procedures are putting us in danger and at the same time doing nothing to alter them?
Click to expand...

He has been stopped by the courts. What would you have him do until the Supreme Court weighs in?

How can the President direct anyone to change whatever vetting process is in place when the Executive Branch of the Government has been halted from doing it's duty by the Circuit courts?

As to naming one thing, he has proposed a travel ban on countries who harbor and support terrorists and terrorism.

Can you name one thing people who oppose the President at every turn have done to improve the security of US Citizens on this issue?
 
Angelus said:
Trump calls it a travel ban ? lawyers call it sabotage | TheHill

In a series of 140-character barbs, Trump on Monday complained his administration had created a “watered down, politically correct version” of the executive order he originally signed temporarily banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. ***

George Conway, a prominent attorney who is married to senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, wrote on Twitter that the president’s tweets “may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help [the Office of the Solicitor General] get 5 votes in [the Supreme Court], which is what actually matters. Sad.”

***

“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.,” Trump tweeted, while urging the department to work on a “much tougher version in the meantime.”

Like lawyers at the Justice Department, Trump’s top aides have insisted that the policy is not a travel ban. “It’s not a Muslim ban. It’s not a travel ban,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Jan. 31. “It’s a vetting system to keep America safe.”

But Trump on Monday made it clear he disagrees.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump tweeted


So the Trump-pets have been arguing that this is not a ban - NOT A BAN! No Ban Here - move along.

Then just at the critical point of the current appeal, Trump announces to the world he regrets that the Justice Department force him to make this weak PC version of a ban, and he intends to go for a ban with real teeth. They guy just does not seem to get it. He is a president - not an emperor or a king. We live in a constitutional democracy where there are three co-equal branches of govt. The court system will not go away because he wants it to.

Trump is incapable of getting anything done because he can't accept the fact that others have a say in what happens. A Travel Ban is exactly what the courts have objected to - it is exactly what the justice department has insisted doesn't exist.

This guy just gives a new meaning to stupid.
Click to expand...

And the left gives us the true meaning of providing for the common defense which means attacking and demonizing Trump when an attack occurs and ignore what is going in in Europe. The true meaning of stupid is the left ignoring the threats to this country to promote their own political agenda It is the role of the President to protect us and this TEMPORARY TRAVEL BAN is fodder for the left to continue their lies to their totally ignorant base all in an attempt to undermine the Trump agenda for national security
 
ocean515 said:
He has been stopped by the courts. What would you have him do until the Supreme Court weighs in?

How can the President direct anyone to change whatever vetting process is in place when the Executive Branch of the Government has been halted from doing it's duty by the Circuit courts?

As to naming one thing, he has proposed a travel ban on countries who harbor and support terrorists and terrorism.

Can you name one thing people who oppose the President at every turn have done to improve the security of US Citizens on this issue?
Click to expand...

Only the travel ban has been stopped. He said he needed 90 days to change procedures. He's had 129. What procedures has he changed?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Only the travel ban has been stopped. He said he needed 90 days to change procedures. He's had 129. What procedures has he changed?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking the question? The Executive Branch of the United States Government has been stopped from doing anything until the courts have determined what it is allowed to do, or not do.

Is that something you can allow yourself to understand, or do you think the Executive Branch should just go ahead and do anything, despite the fact the courts have stopped it from doing so?
 
ocean515 said:
Why are you asking the question? The Executive Branch of the United States Government has been stopped from doing anything until the courts have determined what it is allowed to do, or not do.

Is that something you can allow yourself to understand, or do you think the Executive Branch should just go ahead and do anything, despite the fact the courts have stopped it from doing so?
Click to expand...

Can you show me what part of their ruling means he can't have a review of the current vetting procedures and recommend new "extreme" vetting procedures"?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you show me what part of their ruling means he can't have a review of the current vetting procedures and recommend new "extreme" vetting procedures"?
Click to expand...

What makes you believe he hasn't?

So you can't allow yourself to understand that the courts have prevented the Executive Branch from making any changes until the legal issues of what can and can't be done are worked out?

I'm afraid that roadblock of yours isn't going to let you reach a reasoned and rational conclusion.
 
Athanasius68 said:
What they need to argue is that the law permits the president to issue and enforce such an EO.
Click to expand...

They have pretty much lost this one. What they need is to move on and stop the continued humiliation of defeat.
 
roughdraft274 said:
His original travel ban was for 90 days so that they could create new "extreme" vetting procedures.



It's been 129 days from the original order. If this were important then why hasn't he created new vetting procedures in the mean time? Has he changed anything regarding our process at all? Can you name a single thing he's done to ensure that the process is better? If not, then wouldn't you say that he's not fulfilling these duties since he is claiming that our procedures are putting us in danger and at the same time doing nothing to alter them?
Click to expand...

Kinda difficult for a federal bureaucracy to put new procedures in place while up and running.

Oh, and I guess you forgot a federal judge blocked some of Trumps "extreme vetting" procedures.

Leftist loons just can't get over the fact that they lost an election. Their efforts to overthrow a duly elected President are nothing short of a coup attempt. But I guess no one should be surprised, it's what leftists do when they can't win, they force their abhorrent ideals on the populace.
 
ocean515 said:
He has been stopped by the courts. What would you have him do until the Supreme Court weighs in?

How can the President direct anyone to change whatever vetting process is in place when the Executive Branch of the Government has been halted from doing it's duty by the Circuit courts?

As to naming one thing, he has proposed a travel ban on countries who harbor and support terrorists and terrorism.

Can you name one thing people who oppose the President at every turn have done to improve the security of US Citizens on this issue?
Click to expand...

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

Excellent points you raised! :yes: He is prevented by a leftist district court judge from doing his job, then he is criticized by the leftists for getting nothing done? Must be lots of fun to coordinate something like that! :thumbdown:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom