I need to get this off my chest

[steppinthrax]

I'm no fan of Democrats but I would have said he was supposed to be educating the public about the museum and should have kept his grievances to himself or found other employment... And if you had elected to complain, good on you.

I agree that he should have kept his grievances to himself. Personally if I was taking my kids to this Museum I would not want to hear this ####. But I wouldn't have been offended (personally).

 

[steppinthrax]

No, all you are doing is making wild assumptions with zero real basis.....you are attempting to craft a narrative and stand up an army of straw men.

Carry on.

LOL, Okayyyyy

 

[vraiblonde]

I agree that he should have kept his grievances to himself. Personally if I was taking my kids to this Museum I would not want to hear this ####. But I wouldn't have been offended (personally).

I've come to grips with the more unsavory parts of our American history and enjoy learning about it. What I don't enjoy is some racist screed - no matter who it comes from - spoiling what is supposed to be an educational experience.

And I'm pretty sure if some white docent were looking you in your face and telling you that pretty much everything wrong with the world is your fault, you would be offended.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Such as giving US Constitutional rights to citizens of foreign countries.

Is that what the courts did?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I was thinking about to the 4ths decision .......

The Fourth Circuit Distorts the Law to Defeat Trump’s Travel Ban

Here is the essence of the court’s ruling: Trump’s campaign statements were so grotesque that they not only (1) hurt the feelings of a Muslim resident so much that he was granted standing to challenge an executive order that did not apply to him, but also (2) rendered an otherwise lawful executive order so damaging that the harm to the plaintiff’s feelings (and his wife’s possibly delayed entry into the United States) outweigh the government’s asserted national-security interest in pausing to reexamine foreign entry from hostile and war-torn countries.

Since Trumplaw is such a novel form of jurisprudence, it’s exceedingly hard to square with existing precedent. So, when existing precedent either doesn’t apply or cuts against the overriding demand to stop Trump, then it’s up to the court to yank that law out of context, misinterpret it, and then functionally rewrite it to reach the “right” result.

Take, for example, the Fourth Circuit’s reading of a Supreme Court case called Kleindienst v. Mandel. In Mandel, a collection of scholars demanded that the U.S. grant a non-immigrant visa to Belgian Marxist journalist. The government had denied him entry under provisions of American law excluding those who advocated or published “the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism.” Make no mistake, the First Amendment protects the right to advocate or publish Marxist doctrines every bit as much as it protects the free exercise of the Islamic faith. Yet the Supreme Court still ruled against the Belgian journalist:

We hold that, when the Executive exercises [its] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.​

The meaning is clear. If the order is supported by legitimate and bona fide reasons on its face, you simply don’t go beyond the document. By that standard, the executive order is easily and clearly lawful. On its face, the order asserts a legitimate and bona fide national-security justification. On its face, the order isn’t remotely a Muslim ban. On its face it doesn’t target the Muslim faith in any way, shape, or form. On its face it describes exactly why each nation is included. The Fourth Circuit, however, interpreted Mandel to argue that the Court looked only at the face of the document to determine whether its supporting reasons were legitimate, not whether they were “bona fide.” It could go “behind” the document to determine “good faith.”

Yet, as the dissent notes, this approach would have altered the outcome not only in Mandel itself, but also in other key Supreme Court cases. Indeed, in those cases the Court expressly declined to look behind notices and documents to explore the subjective motivations of relevant government officials. Judge Paul Niemeyer’s dissent is stinging, and correct:

In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited. Mandel, Fiallo, and Din have for decades been entirely clear that courts are not free to look behind these sorts of exercises of executive discretion in search of circumstantial evidence of alleged bad faith. The majority, now for the first time, rejects these holdings in favor of its politically desired outcome.[/INDENT​

I understand it's hard to see right now, but simply giving the President the unilateral power to shut down the border for people from certain countries without justification (He has not proven that the people from those countries are overly dangerous) probably isn't a good thing.​

 

[Gilligan]

Is that what the courts did?

If not that..and in spite of very specific laws giving the President the authority to do what Trump tried to do.....what else, then?

 

[Ken King]

The problem that the "travel ban" is running into is that it doesn't seem to be passing muster with all of the applicable sections of the US Code regarding immigration. It addresses the law passed in 1953 but not the amended code passed in 1965.

Cite please.

The current section Trump is relying upon is 8USC1182(f), it states

(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.

Seems pretty clear cut, doesn't it?

 

[Wishbone]

Cite please.

The current section Trump is relying upon is 8USC1182(f), it states

Seems pretty clear cut, doesn't it?

It is to everyone other than a traitorous democrat judge.

 

[vraiblonde]

I understand it's hard to see right now, but simply giving the President the unilateral power to shut down the border for people from certain countries without justification (He has not proven that the people from those countries are overly dangerous) probably isn't a good thing.

I hate to break the bad news to you, but that power was "given" to the President long before Trump took office. In fact, before Trump was even born.

Whether you think it's a good thing or not is immaterial.

 

[Wishbone]

I hate to break the bad news to you, but that power was "given" to the President long before Trump took office. In fact, before Trump was even born.

Whether you think it's a good thing or not is immaterial.

But... But... But... But... But... But... But... Trump!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I hate to break the bad news to you, but that power was "given" to the President long before Trump took office. In fact, before Trump was even born.

Whether you think it's a good thing or not is immaterial.

Come on. I've done nothing but rally against centralized power within our own government.

The thing is, had he had any shred of evidence that people from those countries are more dangerous, it may have passed. That's what the 9CA ruled on.

For now, he's what, 1-3, and hoping for SCOTUS to step in?

 

[Gilligan]

Come on. I've done nothing but rally against centralized power within our own government.

The thing is, had he had any shred of evidence that people from those countries are more dangerous,

Yeah...just because ISIS is there and stated openly that they would use the refugee stream to infiltrate the US. Except for that, you mean?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yeah...just because ISIS is there and stated openly that they would use the refugee stream to infiltrate the US. Except for that, you mean?

How many people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen has killed anyone in the US since 1975? None.
In fact, only 6 people from those countries have been convited of "attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil" in the same time frame.

The point being, the countries listed account for a tiny percentage of terrorist activity, and no deadly encounters.

Now, when courts review this on a rational basis, they review things like the facts above. SCOTUS has also that while a regulation may seem neutral, they do look at the true purpose behind it and if that involves Trump's words just weeks before coming up with the order, so be it. The security aspect of the ban is weak, so what else is there if not discrimination?

I get you and Trump's line of thought, but the law (INA) says:

"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."

Which is where he and others believe he derives the power to institute the travel ban. You'd be right.

The INA also says:

"no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

Which is what the courts are using for reasoning (some of them anyway) for striking down the ban.

If anyone actually cares to understand the legal basis of the court's opinions, here's an article about it. (Before anyone says "WaPo ", it's an opinion piece by Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a former co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-basis-of-religion/?utm_term=.3b02c099e127

 

[Gilligan]

How many people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen has killed anyone in the US since 1975?

When did ISIS make the threat to infiltrate the refugee stream?

 

[awpitt]

Cite please.

The current section Trump is relying upon is 8USC1182(f), it states

Seems pretty clear cut, doesn't it?

It would except you left out part of the law. 8USC1182(f) was amended in 1965.

8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1) states....

Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

 

[GURPS]

The thing is, had he had any shred of evidence that people from those countries are more dangerous, it may have passed.

The same countries OBAMA suspended travel from :shrug:

It would except you left out part of the law. 8USC1182(f) was amended in 1965.

8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1) states....

so Obama's previous Travel Ban was illegal as well :shrug:


GWB, Clinton, GHB, Reagan, Carter ... all of there bans were illegal as well ?


http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/t...power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/

Then in January of 1998, Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the military junta in Sierra Leone, and their families.”

Former President Ronald Reagan used this executive authority five times while in office. In September of 1981, he barred the entry of “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas.” In August of 1986, Reagan signed an order “barring entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants except in certain cases.” These “certain cases” included Cuban nationals who had applied for entry into the U.S as immediate family members and those who under law were “special immigrants.”

Former President Jimmy Carter used this executive power only once and in a way quite similar to what Trump has proposed. In April 1980, as the U.S embassy in Tehran was under terrorist control, Carter signed an order invalidating “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.” The order said that the U.S “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”


whoops Carter discriminated against people from Iran.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The same countries OBAMA suspended travel from :shrug:

I'm assumning you're talking about 2011 when Obama stopped processing SIV (special immigrant visas) for 6 months from Iraq because of the case in KY?

He didn't stop travel. He required greater background checks.

Not quite the same thing and if you care to understand the differences:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

 

[steppinthrax]

How many people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen has killed anyone in the US since 1975? None.
In fact, only 6 people from those countries have been convited of "attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil" in the same time frame.

The point being, the countries listed account for a tiny percentage of terrorist activity, and no deadly encounters.

Now, when courts review this on a rational basis, they review things like the facts above. SCOTUS has also that while a regulation may seem neutral, they do look at the true purpose behind it and if that involves Trump's words just weeks before coming up with the order, so be it. The security aspect of the ban is weak, so what else is there if not discrimination?

I get you and Trump's line of thought, but the law (INA) says:


Which is where he and others believe he derives the power to institute the travel ban. You'd be right.

The INA also says:


Which is what the courts are using for reasoning (some of them anyway) for striking down the ban.

If anyone actually cares to understand the legal basis of the court's opinions, here's an article about it. (Before anyone says "WaPo ", it's an opinion piece by Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a former co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-basis-of-religion/?utm_term=.3b02c099e127

 

[Gilligan]

When did ISIS make the threat to infiltrate the refugee stream?

 

[awpitt]

so Obama's previous Travel Ban was illegal as well :shrug:


GWB, Clinton, GHB, Reagan, Carter ... all of there bans were illegal as well ?


http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/t...power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/

Then in January of 1998, Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the military junta in Sierra Leone, and their families.”

Former President Ronald Reagan used this executive authority five times while in office. In September of 1981, he barred the entry of “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas.” In August of 1986, Reagan signed an order “barring entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants except in certain cases.” These “certain cases” included Cuban nationals who had applied for entry into the U.S as immediate family members and those who under law were “special immigrants.”

Former President Jimmy Carter used this executive power only once and in a way quite similar to what Trump has proposed. In April 1980, as the U.S embassy in Tehran was under terrorist control, Carter signed an order invalidating “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.” The order said that the U.S “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”


whoops Carter discriminated against people from Iran.

Very poor comparisons.

In each of the other cases, the criteria was very specific and focused. I can't believe you want to compare Carter's ban to Trump's. Iran was holding our people hostage.