• 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!

13 states join brief in support of Trump’s temporary travel ban

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
20 more states and we have the makings of an Article 5 convention.

This is another teachable moment for the Left: instead of pushing this deal towards a convention to change The Constitution (legally!) they could have just went along with the temporary travel ban and been done with it.

But nooooooooooo, it's our way, or the highway.

13 states join brief in support of Trump?s temporary travel ban « Hot Air
 
Ahhh yes the Travel Ban.

Cowardice and xenophobia all rolled up neatly in one package.

'Gee, them thar Muslum types is bad...they come and blowed up 'merica. Donuld sey so. That bad. We stop um with travil ban.'
 
apdst said:
20 more states and we have the makings of an Article 5 convention.

This is another teachable moment for the Left: instead of pushing this deal towards a convention to change The Constitution (legally!) they could have just went along with the temporary travel ban and been done with it.

But nooooooooooo, it's our way, or the highway.

13 states join brief in support of Trump?s temporary travel ban « Hot Air
Click to expand...

They are absolutely correct, as I have pointed out in another thread.

Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh) Research might help in the future:

8 U.S. Code § 1182(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
Click to expand...

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



This is not a "Muslim Ban," it is a ban on entry from six (down from seven since the whiners boo-hoo'ed Syria where a sizeable number of radicals in ISIS are located so much Trump took that off the list) of the 51 nations with majority Muslim populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

Do you see any Indonesians being banned, and they have the largest Muslim population in the world? (Over twice the total population as that in Iran).

That doesn't count India either, which is not predominantly Muslim, but also has more than twice as many Muslims as the total population of Iran.

So a couple of activist Federal judges, making rulings based on political rather than legal grounds, gum up the works and the anti-Trump crowd celebrates like it's a victory for OUR democracy. :roll:

I so hope Gorsuch's appointment speeds up. As a strict constructionist following original intent I expect him to snuff this crap out quickly.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
They are absolutely correct, as I have pointed out in another thread. (finding citation will edit)

This is not a "Muslim Ban," it is a ban on entry from six (down from seven since the whiners boo-hoo'ed Syria where a sizeable number of radicals in ISIS are located so much Trump took that off the list) of the 51 nations with majority Muslim populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

Do you see any Indonesians being banned, and they have the largest Muslim population in the world? (Over twice the total population that of Iran).

That doesn't count India either, which is not predominantly Muslim, but also has more that twice as many Muslims as the total population of Iran.

So a couple of activist Federal judges, making rulings based on political rather than legal grounds, gum up the works and the ant-Trump crowd celebrates like it's a victory for OUR democracy. :roll:

I so hope Gorsuch's appointment speeds up. As a strict constructionist following original intent I expect him to snuff this crap out quickly.
Click to expand...

I wish I shared your confidence that Gorsuch alone would be enough. I've read the bizarre reasoning Justice Kennedy used in Boumediene v. Bush to justify extending the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas to aliens detained at Guantanamo--his opinion for the majority overruled, without having the integrity to acknowledge it was doing it, a fine 1950 decision, Johnson v. Eisentrager--and it makes me think he would probably join the other four.

Boumediene--which I think was wrongly decided, and which I hope will be overruled--marked the first time the Supreme Court had ever arrogated to itself the power to extend any of the protections of our Constitution to any alien who had not entered U.S. territory. In these recent rulings, the federal judges act as if the Constitution of the U.S. applied to all seven-odd billion people in the world. Maybe Anthony Kennedy is the inspiration for their lawlessness.
 
apdst said:
20 more states and we have the makings of an Article 5 convention.

This is another teachable moment for the Left: instead of pushing this deal towards a convention to change The Constitution (legally!) they could have just went along with the temporary travel ban and been done with it.

But nooooooooooo, it's our way, or the highway.

13 states join brief in support of Trump?s temporary travel ban « Hot Air
Click to expand...

We're going to need an Article 5 to change lots of things the leftists screwed up.
 
apdst said:
Where in the EO does it say, "Muslim Ban"?
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

And the boiler room players pushing that narrative are confident the audience they attract with their dog whistles won't know there are many other Muslim majority Nations the Trump Administration is not focusing their temporary travel restrictions on.

All one has to do to understand the reasoning is to visit the website for the identified Nations and see what is required to obtain a travel visa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom