2nd travel ban blocked - ole Donny can't catch a break

[This_person]

First off, those countries don't have the U.S. Constitution.

What rights do non-citizens in other countries have under the US Constitution? If you can find one, you would have something there. Since I know you can't, that's a pretty stupid point to try and bring up.

Secondly, Neither of Trump's bans are based on nationality, they are based on faith.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Please provide the text of the EO that names the religion of which you speak. If you can't, you're making an assumption based on presidential banter instead of fact, which is a pretty stupid thing to do.

You really are stupid.

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

 

[SamSpade]

Secondly, Neither of Trump's bans are based on nationality, they are based on faith.

I'm *assuming* that you will explain how the travel ban is NOT based on nationality - by using the actual text of the travel ban.

You know, our biggest threat from persons traveling to this country is terrorism - and as luck would have it, the terrorists who would do us harm by incredible coincidence happen to hail from majority Muslim nations - a little less than a third of all the world's nations.

So it kind of goes without saying that ANY nation where we wish to curtail travel from is going to be majority Muslim. One of the biggest complaints - a stupid one, but the biggest - is - why don't we ban people from Egypt, or Saudi, or Nigeria, or Indonesia? Oh really? How come you DIDN'T mention China, or India or Germany or France? And among other reasons, it's because they're not exporting terrorism. We're not at threat from crazy Japanese who want to blow us up or run us down with a car. People bring UP Egypt or Saudi in a dumb response but they are pointing out what we all know - we are threatened by radical Muslims.

We do not require improvement on our vetting process from these nations - because they are already cooperating with us since 9/11. These other nations - most of them - are not. So it is incumbent on US to take a break to improve the process.

What is so goddamned horrible about making someone from say, Somalia wait an extra sixty days? It takes almost that long for me to obtain a visa for just about anywhere I travel.

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm *assuming* that you will explain how the travel ban is NOT based on nationality - by using the actual text of the travel ban.

You know, our biggest threat from persons traveling to this country is terrorism - and as luck would have it, the terrorists who would do us harm by incredible coincidence happen to hail from majority Muslim nations - a little less than a third of all the world's nations.

So it kind of goes without saying that ANY nation where we wish to curtail travel from is going to be majority Muslim. One of the biggest complaints - a stupid one, but the biggest - is - why don't we ban people from Egypt, or Saudi, or Nigeria, or Indonesia? Oh really? How come you DIDN'T mention China, or India or Germany or France? And among other reasons, it's because they're not exporting terrorism. We're not at threat from crazy Japanese who want to blow us up or run us down with a car. People bring UP Egypt or Saudi in a dumb response but they are pointing out what we all know - we are threatened by radical Muslims.

We do not require improvement on our vetting process from these nations - because they are already cooperating with us since 9/11. These other nations - most of them - are not. So it is incumbent on US to take a break to improve the process.

What is so goddamned horrible about making someone from say, Somalia wait an extra sixty days? It takes almost that long for me to obtain a visa for just about anywhere I travel.

can you show a terrorist attack in the USA that a person from one of these countries perpetrated?


Its going to be hard to separate trump and his campaign's rhetoric from the ban.

Trump supporter and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also went on TV in January, after the announcement of the first travel ban, and said: “When [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally."

http://time.com/4703232/trump-travel-ban-stephen-miller-rudy-giuliani/

 

[GURPS]

campaign rhetoric

 

[Midnightrider]

campaign rhetoric

If you don't want the court to think your travel ban is a muslim ban you shouldn't go around saying you are going to ban muslims before you issue your ban. Its kind of hard to convince logical people like judges that you aren't doing exactly what you said you were going to do.

 

[Gilligan]

What is so goddamned horrible about making someone from say, Somalia wait an extra sixty days? It takes almost that long for me to obtain a visa for just about anywhere I travel.

That. All the other BS aside, there is that.

At this point, I would hope that the "extreme vetting" is already implemented...how many days have elapsed since the original moratorium started before judges screwed around with it? Point being, at some point the ban becomes moot.

 

[SamSpade]

If you don't want the court to think your travel ban is a muslim ban you shouldn't go around saying you are going to ban muslims before you issue your ban. Its kind of hard to convince logical people like judges that you aren't doing exactly what you said you were going to do.

So - if you're from Somalia - but - you're NOT a Muslim - they just let you go straight through immigration, right? Same for all of the other nations - NOT Muslim, no problem?

Oh, that ISN'T the case? There goes the argument.

 

[SamSpade]

That. All the other BS aside, there is that.

At this point, I would hope that the "extreme vetting" is already implemented...how many days have elapsed since the original moratorium started before judges screwed around with it? Point being, at some point the ban becomes moot.

Could be - could be they've spent all this time fighting idiotic lawsuits. I have no idea.
But it doesn't look like they have any intention of cooperating no matter how stupid they look.

 

[SamSpade]

If you don't want the court to think your travel ban is a muslim ban you shouldn't go around saying you are going to ban muslims before you issue your ban. Its kind of hard to convince logical people like judges that you aren't doing exactly what you said you were going to do.

Something you say on the campaign trail is not the same as policy. Especially if it stops even ONE person who is not a Muslim.

 

[Midnightrider]

So - if you're from Somalia - but - you're NOT a Muslim - they just let you go straight through immigration, right? Same for all of the other nations - NOT Muslim, no problem?

Oh, that ISN'T the case? There goes the argument.

I guess Trump should sign you up as his counsel

 

[SamSpade]

can you show a terrorist attack in the USA that a person from one of these countries perpetrated?

Doesn't matter. It's up to the State Department to determine where the threats are from based on their intelligence.
If they're worth a plugged nickel, they don't need to have someone killed FIRST before they make that determination.

There HAVE been attempts - like that guy who drove over a bunch of people at Ohio State. Who was from Somalia.
I guess it wasn't a terrorist attack because no one was killed?

 

[Gilligan]

I guess Trump should sign you up as his counsel

Nice evasive non-answer.

 

[This_person]

Its going to be hard to separate trump and his campaign's rhetoric from the ban.

So, it IS appropriate to quote Obama when he said he'd been to all 57 states, that there are now 57 states? Or, when Trump said he was going to cut taxes, did that immediately have the effect of lowering taxes? How about when Obama said he'd close GITMO by Jan, 2010 - and then issued an EO forcing it to close - is GITMO closed? When Obama, on the campaign trail, said that he wanted to spread the wealth around, was it fair to look at his policies from then on in those terms?

Or, are you full of ####?

 

[SamSpade]

Nice evasive non-answer.

Well, the "Muslim ban" argument gets even stupider when you also consider the tens of thousands of Muslims entering here every single day from the rest of the world.
THEY go right through immigration DESPITE their religion. How come? Could it be their religion doesn't matter?

 

[Midnightrider]

Doesn't matter. It's up to the State Department to determine where the threats are from based on their intelligence.
If they're worth a plugged nickel, they don't need to have someone killed FIRST before they make that determination.

There HAVE been attempts - like that guy who drove over a bunch of people at Ohio State. Who was from Somalia.
I guess it wasn't a terrorist attack because no one was killed?

if your argument is that you are banning people from these countries because of terrorists are being imported from these countries it would help if there were actually terrorists coming here from those countries. Instead we give a pass to the countries that have an actual history of sending us terrorists.

 

[Gilligan]

Well, the "Muslim ban" argument gets even stupider when you also consider the tens of thousands of Muslims entering here every single day from the rest of the world.
THEY go right through immigration DESPITE their religion. How come? Could it be their religion doesn't matter?

Sure could be the case.

 

[Gilligan]

if your argument is that you are banning people from these countries because of terrorists are being imported from these countries it would help if there were actually terrorists coming here from those countries. Instead we give a pass to the countries that have an actual history of sending us terrorists.

The terrorist organizations like ISIS implicitly stating that they fully intended to use those refugee paths to infiltrate the US...that does not matter, right?

I didn't think so.

 

[itsbob]

Can you name a terrorist attack that was committed by a person on a visa from one of these 6 countries?

Again, your ignorance has no bounds..

So your groupthink is, we shouldn't vet anyone that we think is from a country that is harboring and training terrorists intent on killing us until they actually kill us??

How may is your number??

How many Americans do terrorists have to kill before we take steps to prevent them from coming to our country??

Is your number in the thousands?? Tens of thousands?? How many before we actually stop them.

For me the number is: Lets do everything we can do to stop these #######s from killing a single American.. Seems like Trump feels the same way.

SO, what's wrong with our way of thinking vice yours??

 

[itsbob]

if your argument is that you are banning people from these countries because of terrorists are being imported from these countries it would help if there were actually terrorists coming here from those countries. Instead we give a pass to the countries that have an actual history of sending us terrorists.

Which countries would those be??

 

[Midnightrider]

Again, your ignorance has no bounds..

So your groupthink is, we shouldn't vet anyone that we think from a country that is harboring and training terrorists intent on killing us until they actually kill us??

How may is your number??

How many Americans do terrorists have to kill before we take steps to prevent them from coming to our country??

Is your number in the thousands?? Tens of thousands?? How many before we actually stop them.

For me the number is: Lets do everything we can do to stop these #######s from killing a single American.. Seems like Trump feels the same way.

SO, what's wrong with our way of thinking vice yours??

you sure sound like the antigun crowd. You are using their same arguments and this ban will be just as ineffective as an Assault weapons ban.