The President Trump Immigration Thread

[ArcadiaGP]

If someone comes in and attacks us due to these judges the. I hope the govt sends them to a CIA camp in a far away land.

I don't see how anyone could possibly blame judges for a terrorist attack. Trump saying that was out of line.

Would any attack before today also had been their fault? Same awful logic of blaming gun owners for school shootings.

 

[Trigger Time]

You don't remove them.

You hire some of the best legal minds in the country and brainstorm a way to humiliate them, by baiting them to overturn things they either lack the authority to, or will draw public ire for doing.

...not that I'd advise something like that

whatever it takes (non violent of coarse) we need to remove any judges that legislate personal views from the bench. If they want to make laws then they need to take off the robe and run for congress.

There has to be a way to impeach a judge

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't see how anyone could possibly blame judges for a terrorist attack. Trump saying that was out of line.

Would any attack before today also had been their fault? Same awful logic of blaming gun owners for school shootings.

i mean if someone comes in during this illegal stay, and attacks, then yes they are responsible.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

i mean if someone comes in during this illegal stay, and attacks, then yes they are responsible.

Nothing today is different from how it's been.

No, they would not be responsible. That's a cheap tactic to lay blame on people for not ruling in your favor.

 

[Trigger Time]

Also the White House press conferences are getting out of hand and reporters very disrespectful. I hope they start banning the ones who don't abide by the rules and also I'd love to see them eliminate the press briefings to only one day a week.

 

[Trigger Time]

Nothing today is different from how it's been.

No, they would not be responsible. That's a cheap tactic to lay blame on people for not ruling in your favor.

it is not a cheap trick. The cheap trick is posing as neutral and impartial and then ruling based on your personal opinions. The liberal way. they are out of line. This will be overturned and it will be too late because many many bad people are getting in right now. The Supreme Court will reverse this.

 

[KG1]

As far as I understand it, the reason the stay was upheld was that there was insufficient evidence to show that allowing people in will cause harm to the country. To have overturned it would have required actual evidence that harm would come to the country should we allow people in.

To me it seems like the judges are taking the tact that leaving the EO in place would cause more harm to certain aggrieved portions of the country than it would do to protect the country as a whole from an act of terrorism.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

it is not a cheap trick. The cheap trick is posing as neutral and impartial and then ruling based on your personal opinions. The liberal way. they are out of line. This will be overturned and it will be too late because many many bad people are getting in right now. The Supreme Court will reverse this.

Seeing as today's ruling had nothing to do with merit, yes, the SCOTUS might reverse it. Given that it's 4-4, it might not.

Your description of the "cheap trick" isn't related to what I said.

TT - If you don't agree to ban guns right now, you are personally responsible for all shootings that occur. Do you agree? I mean, how could you not agree? It makes complete sense.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

9th Circuit offers another path to Trump Admin besides SCOTUS, district court: rewrite to executive order to avoid constitutional problems.

Boy, I hope everyone here is consistent with admonishing that sort of behavior.

 

[Trigger Time]

Seeing as today's ruling had nothing to do with merit, yes, the SCOTUS might reverse it. Given that it's 4-4, it might not.

Your description of the "cheap trick" isn't related to what I said.

TT - If you don't agree to ban guns right now, you are personally responsible for all shootings that occur. Do you agree? I mean, how could you not agree? It makes complete sense.

im not a sworn impartial judge posing as one

 

[T.Lex]

I wonder if Trump has something up his sleeve. Something like banning ALL immigration for 90 days since they won't stay this case... If he bans all immigration, they can't use the religious discrimination angle.

I thought we covered this: he can't ban all immigration. That's essentially what the EO text says (from those countries), and he had to back off.

More on this later....

So this was a "you will respect us" decision?

Hell no. And I'm a bit concerned that you'd interpret my post that way. That was my own personal sentiment.

As far as I understand it, the reason the stay was upheld was that there was insufficient evidence to show that allowing people in will cause harm to the country. To have overturned it would have required actual evidence that harm would come to the country should we allow people in.

Sorta. The issue is whether a rational basis exists for the total suspension. Can the president (through his attorneys) point to an actual rational reason for the change. They apparently could not. At least not one that was persuasive.

I think the President should sign a new executive order that is more specific and basicly does the same thing or even more.

So this is something I've addressed in this conversation but I guess no one picked up on. Trump's always been able to modify the EO to make this moot.

But he doesn't understand nuance. He has to make a show of it.

What he could do is rescind the EO, tell DHS that individuals coming from countries where there's a prevalence of terrorism - and he could even name a half dozen or so - will be subject to extra vetting. We want to be sure about them.

That's it.

If it takes a few extra days, then so be it.

But then it would happen behind the scenes and there wouldn't be cameras or tweets about it.

If someone comes in and attacks us due to these judges the. I hope the govt sends them to a CIA camp in a far away land.

You've suggested some really bad ideas before, and that has to be one of the worst.

To me it seems like the judges are taking the tact that leaving the EO in place would cause more harm to certain aggrieved portions of the country than it would do to protect the country as a whole from an act of terrorism.

No. They are retaining the status quo, which seems to be working, until the constitutionality of the so called president's actions can be fully litigated.

9th Circuit offers another path to Trump Admin besides SCOTUS, district court: rewrite to executive order to avoid constitutional problems.

As I said, that has always been the case.

 

[BugI02]

I don't see how anyone could possibly blame judges for a terrorist attack. Trump saying that was out of line.

Would any attack before today also had been their fault? Same awful logic of blaming gun owners for school shootings.

If someone joined the migrant stream, or more likely the refugee stream, from one of the seven countries after the TRO and managed to slip in (because POTUS is now forced to improve vetting on the fly) and stage an attack, I don't see how you could NOT blame these judges. People would be howling for their skins and I would wager impeachment would be the least of their problems.

Imperial judges are arguably just as bad as an imperial presidency. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown"

Perhaps some of the micrometrically precise measurements being made to attempt to ferret out the hypocrisy of those not leaping to criticize every awkward move by the Trump administration could be spared to examine the hypocrisy of those who have railed against activist judges - you know, except for the ones they agree with

 

[BugI02]

whatever it takes (non violent of coarse) we need to remove any judges that legislate personal views from the bench. If they want to make laws then they need to take off the robe and run for congress.

There has to be a way to impeach a judge

There is. For a federal judge it is the same process to impeach a president - 'indicted' in the House, tried in the Senate

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, that's the first snack down. I expect plenty more in the upcoming years.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Well, that's the first snack down. I expect plenty more in the upcoming years.

did you go with a hoho or a ding-dong?

 

[KG1]

did you go with a hoho or a ding-dong?

Really. I think kut is gonna gain a lot of weight eating all those snacks in the upcoming years.

 

[printcraft]

did you go with a hoho or a ding-dong?

*Snickers*

 

[bwframe]

Kalifonia judges decisions determining our national security concerns. When and where did we ever determine that this is acceptable?

 

[Trigger Time]

I thought we covered this: he can't ban all immigration. That's essentially what the EO text says (from those countries), and he had to back off.

More on this later....



Hell no. And I'm a bit concerned that you'd interpret my post that way. That was my own personal sentiment.



Sorta. The issue is whether a rational basis exists for the total suspension. Can the president (through his attorneys) point to an actual rational reason for the change. They apparently could not. At least not one that was persuasive.


So this is something I've addressed in this conversation but I guess no one picked up on. Trump's always been able to modify the EO to make this moot.

But he doesn't understand nuance. He has to make a show of it.

What he could do is rescind the EO, tell DHS that individuals coming from countries where there's a prevalence of terrorism - and he could even name a half dozen or so - will be subject to extra vetting. We want to be sure about them.

That's it.

If it takes a few extra days, then so be it.

But then it would happen behind the scenes and there wouldn't be cameras or tweets about it.


You've suggested some really bad ideas before, and that has to be one of the worst.


No. They are retaining the status quo, which seems to be working, until the constitutionality of the so called president's actions can be fully litigated.


As I said, that has always been the case.

well I'm not a lawyer

 

[eatsnopaste]

I think I posted upthread a link to the briefs.

Briefly (pardon the pun), the Washington (and Minnesota) AG argues that caught up in the implementation of the "suspension" were people employed by various Washington institutions who had a vested interest in being allowed into the country, and the inability of those people to enter the country was harming not only those people who held the vested interest, but corporate/educational entities who were residents of Washington. Several big name tech companies have joined the litigation expressing the same sentiment.

So because a citizen of Washington State, works for a company and may not be able to get back into the U.S. as fast as he/she usually does, this gives the State AG's standing? I am not a lawyer by any means but to me this seems as if it is a BIG stretch.