bbauska wrote:If you notice, the 7 countries listed are the ones in the travel ban. I am glad you agree that they are dangerous places. If there are people in the countries who are doing evil toward the groups you listed, I would think it is in the best interest of the United States to spend the extra time investigating.

You do know that Christians trying to leave Syria for the US were caught up in the ban?

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:It's not constitutional in my mind because it is clearly directed at Muslims as a group without any attempt to justify why all of them from 7 countries need to be banned.

It doesn't ban just Muslims. It temporarily stops all immigration from those countries unless they are persecuted minorities.

Not quite. It allowed exceptions for those fleeing religious persecution in those countries. So non-Muslims were not being completely blocked.

I think it is Constitutional based on the authority Congress has given the President.

I am pretty sure there is more to it than that. The main effects of the EO which led to judicial stays were when they affected people who were already given legal status, and when US residents who were returning from a trip abroad were stopped or even sent back.

Later, after some to-ing and fro-ing, Green Card holders were exempted from the ban.

9th Circuit upholds stay, saying they think that government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits nor have shown irreparable injury.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nin ... story.html

By the way, here is the opposition from the State of Washingtin, et al

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... sition.pdf

And here is 9th Circuit page on the case where you can access everything filed.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/vi ... 0000000860

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:[Why should AMERICANS not want MORE inspection of people coming from those countries?

Perhaps it's the wrong question. Perhaps the right question is, why wasn't a ban placed upon Saudi Arabia? (Which is where most of the foreign terrorists who have killed Americans in the USA have come from, in case you forgot, like Tom.)

Perhaps you are right, Geo. The 90 day examination extension should be expanded to ALL nations. Would that be fine?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:If you notice, the 7 countries listed are the ones in the travel ban. I am glad you agree that they are dangerous places. If there are people in the countries who are doing evil toward the groups you listed, I would think it is in the best interest of the United States to spend the extra time investigating.

You do know that Christians trying to leave Syria for the US were caught up in the ban?

I am fine with that, and not segmenting via religion.

bbauska

Perhaps you are right, Geo. The 90 day examination extension should be expanded to ALL nations. Would that be fine?

A 90 ban on travel from all nations would disrupt commerce and travel. As the court said in its ruling "The public also has an interest in free flow of travel......:

And why any ban?
There has never been any significant evidence presented to suggest that the current vetting procedures in place since 2011 aren't effective.
There has never been any suggestion about what "improvements" could be made to the current processes to reach Trumps' mythic "extreme vetting".
Its all BS.

Because we have a border. That border needs enforcement. There are illegal aliens entering the country. There are people coming from "dangerous countries". That is why.

Are you saying we should have borders, but not enforce them?

You still have not answered. Why should the "dangerous countries" (your words) not have extra examination. Try to answer that rather than just giving new questions.

freeman3 wrote:By the way, here is the opposition from the State of Washingtin, et al

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... sition.pdf

And here is 9th Circuit page on the case where you can access everything filed.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/vi ... 0000000860

It's the 9th.

I'm sure we will see this status change. Even Trump will see this is a roadblock best avoided for now. Easiest route: change the EO and assign some real lawyers to the subsequent liberal lawsuits.

The judge in WA was a joke. And, please, no "But, he was appointed by Bush" nonsense. Please. It will make you look foolish.

The ban was poorly thought-out, hastily implemented, both over and under-inclusive, a sop to the base and unconstitutional. Other than that it was great...

I am not sure what the judge in WA did wrong. If you are going to ban all Muslim immigration from a country you need to make a convincing case that it's necessary for our security. That's pretty hard to do when you have barely put up the pictures in your office....

Yes, come back with a different EO and make a convincing case...if there is one to be made. I doubt it, except for Syria and perhaps Iraq where given the chaos maybe they can argue it is impossible to properly screen people. But but must we keep women and children out, as well? Yes, if we keep out all Muslims from visiting our country there will be no attacks against us. But our our current vetting with regard to the 7 countries has resulted in 0 fatalities from visitors from those countries since 9-11 (and of course none of the 9-11 attackers was from those countries). Two things that will help in getting an EO upheld: (1) the process--doing due diligence and coming up with reasonable, supported reasons why current vetting is not good enough, (2) fine-tuning the ban to show that it is not aimed at all Muslims. Blanket bans with no evidence as to why current vetting is not good enough and I am the president you have to defer to my judgment on this even though clearly there no evaluation done to justify such deference....not going to work.

Where does it say all Muslims were banned? I thought Danivon said Christians coming from Syria were "caught up in the ban".

freeman3 wrote:The ban was poorly thought-out, hastily implemented, both over and under-inclusive, a sop to the base and unconstitutional. Other than that it was great...

I am not sure what the judge in WA did wrong. If you are going to ban all Muslim immigration from a country you need to make a convincing case that it's necessary for our security. That's pretty hard to do when you have barely put up the pictures in your office....

Yes, come back with a different EO and make a convincing case...if there is one to be made. I doubt it, except for Syria and perhaps Iraq where given the chaos maybe they can argue it is impossible to properly screen people. But but must we keep women and children out, as well? Yes, if we keep out all Muslims from visiting our country there will be no attacks against us. But our our current vetting with regard to the 7 countries has resulted in 0 fatalities from visitors from those countries since 9-11 (and of course none of the 9-11 attackers was from those countries). Two things that will help in getting an EO upheld: (1) the process--doing due diligence and coming up with reasonable, supported reasons why current vetting is not good enough, (2) fine-tuning the ban to show that it is not aimed at all Muslims. Blanket bans with no evidence as to why current vetting is not good enough and I am the president you have to defer to my judgment on this even though clearly there no evaluation done to justify such deference....not going to work.

Where does the "convincing case" come in? Where is that in the law regarding immigration EO?

My take: the court invented that standard.

This is not a ban. It's a suspension until proper vetting standards are in place.

Well everyone from the 7 countries was banned from entering for 90 days. There is a 120 day ban on refugees for 6 of the countries and an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria. And the order allows exceptions for refugees from minority religious groups when the the refugee program is reinstated after 120 days. But there is an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria so it appears that Syria's Christian refugees would be caught up in the order. We'll see. And yes the order does not explicitly target Muslims but all of the countries have 90% or more Muslim populations and Trump is making exception for Christian refugees so it would be pretty disingenuous to think that this is not a ban targeting Muslims or at least a ban on Muslims coming from purportedly troubled Muslim states.

freeman3 wrote:Well everyone from the 7 countries was banned from entering for 90 days. There is a 120 day ban on refugees for 6 of the countries and an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria. And the order allows exceptions for refugees from minority religious groups when the the refugee program is reinstated after 120 days. But there is an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria so it appears that Syria's Christian refugees would be caught up in the order. We'll see. And yes the order does not explicitly target Muslims but all of the countries have 90% or more Muslim populations and Trump is making exception for Christian refugees so it would be pretty disingenuous to think that this is not a ban targeting Muslims or at least a ban on Muslims coming from purportedly troubled Muslim states.

Christians are being slaughtered, so an exception would seem to make sense, wouldn't it?

In 1989, the U.S. Congress passed the Lautenberg Amendment classifying Soviet Jews and certain other religious communities as persecuted groups, automatically qualifying them for refugee status.

And, again, an indefinite ban makes sense. We can't get any documentation from Syria. Our nation is one of immigrants. However, we are not obligated to permit anyone from anywhere to immigrate.

If today's Democrats had been in charge in 1942, they would have insisted on permitting immigration from Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Well, we did keep Jews out fleeing from Nazi persecution...not one of our better moments as a country. We can give in to our fears and prejudices...or we can let professionals make reasoned assessments about people coming in to our country. It would seem that since 9-11 that our intelligence services have done a very good job in keeping the bad guys out and letting other people in. Trump wants metaphorically to get rid of the whole stack of hay in order to make sure the needle does not sneak in. That is just not right.