I need to get this off my chest
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
BOP
Well-Known Member
Negative, ghost rider; they ruled on the fact that he used the word "Muslim" in a sentence before he was elected.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
To curtail travel until an acceptable vetting process is established for those countries - which we already HAVE in place for other countries which also harbor terrorists.
I don't buy the "how many Americans have been killed by Somalis" argument'
We could say the same for North Korea, and yet they openly proclaim their desire to nuke the hell out of us at their first opportunity.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
The 9CA ruling stemmed from Hawaii v. Trump. Feel free to look through the opinion. You won't see much in there about Muslims. It had to do more with not following a procedural path set forward by the INA.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf
You're thinking of the 4CA ruling
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3733217/4th-Cir-17-01351.pdf.
So, in the months since Trump has been in office. After the multiple failed attempts to pass this ban, and understanding that his order was only temporary, what has the Trump administration done to create an "acceptable vetting" system? Has there been any progress made? Is there anything stopping this administration from moving forward with a more robust vetting system?
The president has the authority to do this. That's clear. But there has to be some sort of reasoning. "Rational basis" review is done by judges. Judges are part of the judicial branch, which overlooks the (ever-growing, power-wise) executive branch. The president is not a king and he wants to stop the immigration from those countries, he needs a better reason and has to show how those people have affected our country. Considering the majority of the middle eastern terrorists that struck this country have NOT been from any of the countries on the ban list, what grounds does he have to stand on?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I think we should have open borders. I'm with Chris on that one.
Imagine if we didn't go off to fight perpetual wars in the Middle East.
Maybe less people would hate us for blowing up innocent men, women, and children in places like hospitals, weddings, etc.
Maybe if the US stops trying regime changes which allow forces like ISIS to pop up...
Certiainly someone with your pedigree education saw that I never mentioned open borders.
Would they just start leaving us completely alone?
Imagine if we didn't go off to fight perpetual wars in the Middle East. -- Would be nice, but you can't aviod it with so much business being done in that region.
Maybe less people would hate us for blowing up innocent men, women, and children in places like hospitals, weddings, etc. --OK... You put this in there just for laughs, didn't you?
Maybe if the US stops trying regime changes which allow forces like ISIS to pop up... -- Agree we shouldnt be picking their govts for them but to think #### like ISIS and AL-KAY-DA not cropping up is just fantasy.
Certiainly someone with your pedigree education saw that I never mentioned open borders. -- Can't say I've ever seen you mention that but that's the chronic cry of the left, that the world is owed a seat at Americans Dinner Table.
We'll see.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I have to admit - I don't know why. But I am not a lawyer. (There needs to be some kind of shorthand for that). I don't know if they can or can't move forward regardless of a ban.
That's extraordinarily gracious of you. For some reason, several judges seem to think he has none, and have ruled as much. (I think they are wrong, I think they KNOW they are wrong, but are ruling anyway).
I think if you read the travel bans, they INCLUDE Americans travelling to there and back. I may be mistaken, but I thought I read wording along such lines. The idea is - and has been borne out by circumstance - if they travel to these places and come back, they may have been "radicalized". And proper vetting is still necessary.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
That's the crux of it, isn't it? Are we so far down this rabbit hole that we'll be spending billions in the middle east for decades while our own infrastructure crumbles, and we're stuck paying ever-increasing taxes.
Switzerland doesn't have too many that hate them. Then again, they don't meddle too much in other countries' business.
That "business" in the region is arguably our fault.
No, I didn't. Imagine your family member being killed by outside police for simply living in a bad neighborhood. You'd feel some resentment toward that police force. Now imagine a foreign military force dropping bombs from drones killing your family while praying, or at a wedding, or in the hospital. This may come as a surprise, but not everyone over there is a terrorist, but it's not hard to see that killing innocent people breeds resentment, leading to easier recruits.
Picking their govt. and destablizing the region is the reason those groups pop up. It's the unintended consequences of regime change we love so much. We keep electing warhawks (on both sides of the aisle).
Just look at the countries on Trump's (original) travel ban:
Libya - Moammar Qaddafi. The US jumped into ther civil war back in 2011, knocking Qaddafi out of power, and turning the country into chaos. ISIS didn't operate in Libya before then.
Iraq - How long have we been ####ing with them? Regan armed then during their spat with Iran. H.W. Bush led a coalition against Iraq after it invade Kuwait. Clinton sanciotned and bombed Iraq off and on during his time. Clinton also signed the Iraq Liberation Act which made regime change there official. W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 based on non-existant WMDs. In 2008, Bush tried to end the war via a status of forces agreement. Obama pulled out the troops from Iraq in 2011, but returned when ISIS popped up (even though there was no congressional approval to do so). We remain in Iraq.
Somalia - We sent troops there in 1993 with support of the Un for peacekeeping after Siad Barre (dictator) asked for aid from the Soviet Union, then the US during the Cold War. About 2006, the US got more involved in Somalia, sending troops to work with Ethiopia to invade the Islamic Courts Union which started tio impose itself on Somalia. The younger folks of the ICU broke off after the invasion and formed Al-Shabaab. We've since dropped a number of bombs to hit terrorists the US can't even identify.
Sudan - Started with a 1998 missle attack on a pharmaceutical factory. The attack was allegedly by Al-Qaeda, but the Sudanese govt. and facotry owner disputed that claim. We've since supported an independent South Sudan, which became an official country in 2011. Not long after, broke out into civil war.
Syria - We've spent years, and tons of money arming "moderates" in the hopes that the only way to end the civil war in Syria is to force Bashar Assad out of office. Last year, we dropped mroe bombs in Syria than anywhere else.
Yemen - Here, a drone strike from Obama's adminsitration killed American citizen suspected of being a terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. They killed his teenage son in another strike. The country decended into civil war in 2015. Early this year, we launched another counter-terroism operation there, killing a US commando, and al_Awlaki's 8 year old daughter. The US also sells arms to Saudi Arabia, which is fighting in Yemen to establish a US-backed regime. There was a puch last year by some members of Congress tosuspend the selling of arms to Saudi Arabia after some controversial bombings, such as blowing up a hospital.
Iran - The only country we haven't had military action against in the last 2 decades. Of course, that doesn't stop the rhetoric. McCain wanted to "Bomb Iran" during his 2008 run. Based on US intelligence, Iran's been on the verge of building a nuke for 17 years.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I have to admit - I don't know why. But I am not a lawyer. (There needs to be some kind of shorthand for that). I don't know if they can or can't move forward regardless of a ban.
IANAL
I don't see why establishing a greater vetting process can only be done if the travel from those countries is suspended. If Trump is really worried about people from those countries, why not get started on a better vetting process now instead of spending so much time and energy into defnending the ban itself (which isn't necessarily working toward the goal of haveing a better vetting process).
That's extraordinarily gracious of you. For some reason, several judges seem to think he has none, and have ruled as much. (I think they are wrong, I think they KNOW they are wrong, but are ruling anyway).
I disagree. The court opinions specifically point out the INA (which gives him the authorization). Mainly because that's the statutory power giving Trump the ability to institute a ban. Trump's EO language points to certain INA clauses which gives him the power to establish a ban. The courts are stepping in because that same INA says you can't ban people based on religion. One of the main issues (since the 4CA and 9CA came to the same ruling, but on different grounds) is determining if a candidate's words on the campaign trail (up to just a few weeks prior to the issuance of the EO) point to intent of the EO.
SCOTUS should take up the case and settle this. Like Gilligan said in another thread, this could have far-reaching implications down the road. If a Democratic candidate says "we need a gun ban", then passes some sort of EO limiting run rights to people, is that a similar case? Who knows.
I think if you read the travel bans, they INCLUDE Americans travelling to there and back. I may be mistaken, but I thought I read wording along such lines. The idea is - and has been borne out by circumstance - if they travel to these places and come back, they may have been "radicalized". And proper vetting is still necessary.
Since the INA only applies to aliens, and that's what his basis of the ban is on, it can't apply to Americans. The specific provision used as basis for the ban is:
The EO itself specifically says:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
...
So are you suggesting to stop doing business in their countries? Cease buying their products? ####'em... let em starve type philosophy? If so... I can get on board with that.
As for the idea that we are over there slaughtering their children... BS. Does collateral damage happen... Sure. But it's nowhere near the level youre claiming in trying to support that BS idea.
####it. Too much fencing over the whole ####ing travel ban.
Make the vetting process... If you survive a shotgun blast through the roof of your mouth, come on in.
But would they leave us alone? You didn't even try to answer that fundamental question. It gets right to the heart of what their overarching global objective is.
You won't get an honest answer to that one from a Marxist.
You'll get the a BS line or their standard "Coexist" ####.
What I see is more along the lines of "If we just left them alone and were nice to them, they'd like us and be nice to us too". It's always worked well in the past.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I'm suggesting we focus on our selves, our people, our schools, our veterans, our infrastructure, and focus less on trying to put people into power we want, in countries half way across the globe. Working with, trading with, aiding, etc. are all much different things than invaiding and dropping bombs on other countries.
We certainly are killing children. Did I say we're ignoring the Geneva Convention and doing it indiscriminately? No. Did I claim a level of anything? No. I simply said itr's happening. Because it is. Because we're there. Fighting.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
To be fair, given your penchant for grabbing a portion of a sentence from someone while completely ignoring the entirety of someone's post, I feel no need to go into a formal debate with you. You won't do it anyway.
As much as you want it, no one can say for sure if they'd leave us alone.
It's similar to saying "if we had greater gun laws, gun violence would drop", but considering the hundreds of millions of guns floating around the US, that's highly unlikely. Given our time fighting with these countries, it's unlikely they'd simply leave us alone. But my argument isn't that. Much like the drug laws argument, who is weighing the good and bad? Perpetual wars has given us debt, thousands of American lives lost, civilians killed, entire countries delved into civil war, increased power in the central govt, spying on American citizens, etc. What good have we gotten out of it? Security? Peace? Increased Raytheon stock?
So, it's not a simple yes/no question as you want my answer to be. Which is why I asked if that's the crux of it. Have we been at war too long to be able to leave without a clear victory (which no one can seem to point out)?