Trump's immigration ban

[Ten oz]

Elections have consequences. The ban on immigrants from specific Islamic countries is one of Trump's campaign promises. As POTUS he is able to do this.

 

There are questions about conflictsof interest. It appears countries which should be obvious targets for such a ban, give its stated excuse, aren't on the list because Trump does business there.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199324/countries-listed-on-trumps-refugee-ban-dont-include-those-he-has-business-with

 

Trump's failure to work with theState Dept., DHS, and DOJ to roll this out smoothly reflects Trump's inexperience in gov't. He doesn't appear to understand how changes to policy are made, which depts are impacted, and what precautions are normally exercised. Even top Republicans are upset.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/republicans-congress-trump-refugees.html

 

As protests grow and courts around the country review complaints what happens next with regards to the ban?

 

[Delta1212]

Also, apparently Steve Bannon overruled the original draft by the DHS and added green card holders to the ban.

[swansont]

Elections have consequences. The ban on immigrants from specific Islamic countries is one of Trump's campaign promises. As POTUS he is able to do this.

 

Not legally, no. It violates several aspects of the Constitution and the immigration and naturalization act of 1965.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0

[Ten oz]

Not legally, no. It violates several aspects of the Constitution and the immigration and naturalization act of 1965.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0

The White House claims the "temp" ban is based on threat assessments. They haven't officially outlined a zone, religion, type of govt, or etc. It is legal. We may all understand what the ban is really about but in court it isn't about what one knows but rather what one can prove. I believe the White House will beat the legal challanges.

[swansont]

The White House claims the "temp" ban is based on threat assessments. They haven't officially outlined a zone, religion, type of govt, or etc. It is legal. We may all understand what the ban is really about but in court it isn't about what one knows but rather what one can prove. I believe the White House will beat the legal challanges.

 

 

This is belied by Giuliani's reveal that they were searching for wording to mask that it is directed against Muslims. They also gave preference to Christians. Blatant violation of the law.

 

And now we have people not complying with the court order that stayed the ban, which is a significant breakdown regarding the rule of law.

[Ten oz]

 

 

This is belied by Giuliani's reveal that they were searching for wording to mask that it is directed against Muslims. They also gave preference to Christians. Blatant violation of the law.

 

And now we have people not complying with the court order that stayed the ban, which is a significant breakdown regarding the rule of law.

I am with you. This is obviously directed at Muslims. It is deplorable! That said I believe The White House wins this in court. If Congress did their job ethically Trump would already be impeached but they don't.

 

Agents not complying with the courts is very troubling. If nothing comes of that (Agents lose their jobs at a minimum) we are in a very troubling place where listening to POTUS overrides all others; checks and balances have been trampled.

[StringJunky]

If anything comes out of Trumps presidency it will be to see how strong the checks and balances are within the government infrastructure and laws, and where they will need amending to prevent those abuses or errors happening again by future presidents.

Edited January 30, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrKrettin]

I'm not sure if this breaks any forum rules, but here is a link to a petition objecting to Trump's behaviour. I'm quite fond of futile gestures.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell the only thing Trump is doing differently is being honest about plutocracy, religious bigotry and xenophobia- which are cornerstones of Republican thinking.

[Ten oz]

Trump fired the acting Attorney GeneralSally Yates for not supporting his ban.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0

 

As StringJunky said Trump will lay bare the weakness in our checks and balances. Last POTUS to fire an Attorney General for refusing orders was Nixon and in that case the order refused was to end the Watergate investigations. Nixon was impeached. Sally Yates has been an Attorney since 1985 and worked in the U.S. Attorney's office since 1989. The Attorney Generals office exist as the chief legal brain of the White House. By firing the Attorney General Trump has made clear that what he wants supersedes due diligence. It shouldn't stand without repercussions, action by congress.

[Carrock]

I'm not sure if this breaks any forum rules, but here is a link to a petition objecting to Trump's behaviour. I'm quite fond of futile gestures.

Another gesture, for U.K. residents who don't want to embarrass the Queen but do want to embarrass the prime minister: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928.

1,658,056 signatures so far.

[geordief]

Another gesture, for U.K. residents who don't want to embarrass the Queen but do want to embarrass the prime minister: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928.

1,658,056 signatures so far.

Amazing that Trump should,by all accounts be an anglophile ** and that he sets store in this invitation.

 

Can the UK government make use of this need to extract a basic decency from the administration at least on the international stage?

 

The queen is the head of the Commonwealth and Sudan has applied for (re?) membership. Can the Queen pull rank on Trump and insist that Sudan be removed from the 7 countries presently on Trump's list.?

 

That would give her some time to keep the man outside the door . By all accounts the Queen (if she has her health) would be well up to dealing with the man and perhaps some good might come from the proposed visit .

 

"Special treatment" for the Sudan may seem a paltry offering but it could be seen as another front perhaps.

 

The Queen ,I am sure is no shrinking violet and may be quite up for the joust.

 

** if anything can be believed about the man

Edited January 31, 2017 by geordief

[StringJunky]

Another gesture, for U.K. residents who don't want to embarrass the Queen but do want to embarrass the prime minister: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928.

1,658,056 signatures so far.

As much as I agree with it, in spirit, I don't think it's the right thing to do. He is the legitimate President of the United States. Any dischord or protest must be by the American people. Anything else would be disrespect for their political process and democratically elected leader. The Queen will not be a pawn or figurehead in any political protest; she is apolitical. The petition is a dead duck. As much as people may despise Trump, due political process and everything that goes with it must be allowed to proceed. It's time for our stiff upper lip and "...hanging on in quiet desperation".

Edited January 31, 2017 by StringJunky

[Externet]

The protest should not be directed to the president. They are barking at the wrong hydrant.

 

The citizens of the affected banned countries should complain to the terrorists of their respective countries as they CAUSED the preventive action. If no action was taken and a terrorist attack mishappens, the president would be accused of not taking prevention actions.

 

So, have the protesters going to their countries and spank their co-national terrorists which caused most of them to inmigrate in the first place, fix or eliminate their problems and would be free to be welcome anywhere. And do not ask the U.S. to do it for them. Constitution plays no role as this is not religious.

 

Meanwhile, as ALL peaceful citizens have been force-funneled to airport restrictions and security measures unable to carry that and the other, searches and more hassle by the fault of bad apples, Inmigrants will have to taste their own medicine by being funneled into restrictions.

 

Same with the wall. Mexicans should complain and protest to their current and past presidents for not implementing a quality of life that they want, producing the emigration. Do not bark at U.S. government. That same U.S. government that made the U.S. a sought-after temptation to migrate in.

 

The quality of a country is measured by sustracting the number of emigrants from the number of inmigrants.

 

And yes, am a very legal inmigrant.

[CharonY]

So by your logic you should have gone back to your own country and make it better so that you would have the quality of life you wanted and thereby negating the need to emigrate?

[Ten oz]

@Externet, there is never a convenient time, place, or way to protest. It is bad enough Trump is lying g to the American people no reason citizens of other countries should have to tolerate it. In the case of the ban there is a very real risk that it will motivate extremists. I understand why other countries may want to distance themselves.

[swansont]

As much as I agree with it, in spirit, I don't think it's the right thing to do. He is the legitimate President of the United States. Any dischord or protest must be by the American people. Anything else would be disrespect for their political process and democratically elected leader. The Queen will not be a pawn or figurehead in any political protest; she is apolitical. The petition is a dead duck. As much as people may despise Trump, due political process and everything that goes with it must be allowed to proceed. It's time for our stiff upper lip and "...hanging on in quiet desperation".

 

What?

 

One country should not try and exert pressure on another, if it serves their interests? Isn't that what countries do all the time? (e.g. economic sanctions, trade agreements).

The protest should not be directed to the president. They are barking at the wrong hydrant.

 

The citizens of the affected banned countries should complain to the terrorists of their respective countries as they CAUSED the preventive action. If no action was taken and a terrorist attack mishappens, the president would be accused of not taking prevention actions.

 

 

As there have been no US terror attacks from citizens of the countries named in the EO, how exactly did they cause this to happen?

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/

[Externet]

So by your logic you should have gone back to your own country and make it better so that you would have the quality of life you wanted and thereby negating the need to emigrate?

Thanks for your valid observation; yes, that is my logic. 'Negating the need'.

 

I was pulled out of my birth country at age 5 and much later dragged by wife to U.S.

With no schooling in my own european country nor participation/knowledge of its internal workings, am not in a position to push for changes there. Which are not really needed, things are very satisfactory and civilized. My original country is also being invaded by immigrants, and feel the U.S. president is taking a right preventive action.

 

Emigration happens because the governments of emigrants countries are rotten. Bark at them.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The citizens of the affected banned countries should complain to the terrorists of their respective countries as they CAUSED the preventive action.

 

 

Do you have a map?

Are you able to find Saudi Arabia and the countries near it?

OK Now colour in the countries where Trump has banned people from.

Then put marks on the map to show where- for example- the 9/11 terrorists came from.

 

Have you noticed something?

Yes- Trump has banned travel from the wrong countries.

People who, like the 9/11 bombers, come from Saudi Arabia are allowed in.

 

 

Now find another colour and shade in the countries where Trump has major business dealings.

Do you notice something else?

He hasn't banned travel where it would harm his business interests.

So the idea that he has done this to prevent terrorists getting to the US is and "alternative fact"- or as we scientists call it, a lie.

 

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/824722049243480065/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Prometheus]

The protest should not be directed to the president. They are barking at the wrong hydrant.

 

The citizens of the affected banned countries should complain to the terrorists of their respective countries as they CAUSED the preventive action. If no action was taken and a terrorist attack mishappens, the president would be accused of not taking prevention actions.

 

So, have the protesters going to their countries and spank their co-national terrorists which caused most of them to inmigrate in the first place, fix or eliminate their problems and would be free to be welcome anywhere. And do not ask the U.S. to do it for them. Constitution plays no role as this is not religious.

 

Meanwhile, as ALL peaceful citizens have been force-funneled to airport restrictions and security measures unable to carry that and the other, searches and more hassle by the fault of bad apples, Inmigrants will have to taste their own medicine by being funneled into restrictions.

 

Same with the wall. Mexicans should complain and protest to their current and past presidents for not implementing a quality of life that they want, producing the emigration. Do not bark at U.S. government. That same U.S. government that made the U.S. a sought-after temptation to migrate in.

 

Granted immigration and terrorism are a cause of much fear in Western countries, but the protest is correctly directed at the president because his reaction to this fear is eroding liberty. It is this loss of liberty which warrants protest. While the Islamic Jihadist/Salafist movements are shaping the discourse of Western politics then terror is winning.

 

This is the price we pay for living in a liberal society and it is a price i am willing to pay, but i recognise others in the same society prefer safety to liberty. In Europe, where it is said there is an Islamist crisis, you are more likely to die choking on your food than die from a terrorist incident. I can live with that level of risk and am thankful to the various security agencies for keeping the risk that low, but no more liberties need be removed to further reduce it.

 

The more broad issue of how much immigration a country can economically and culturally handle is is another question, and one which i imagine could have a reasonable estimate if it were not so laden with various political biases. But dictating migration policy based on data and model based projections in probably too much to ask for at the moment: our politics relies on charm not data.

[ModernArtist25]

The ban wasn't a surprise to the countries on the list...most of the people from those countries who apply for Visa so they can live in the US, 97% chance they get rejected. So America always had something against Muslims, only thing the ban did was made it public.

[Ten oz]

 

Granted immigration and terrorism are a cause of much fear in Western countries, but the protest is correctly directed at the president because his reaction to this fear is eroding liberty. It is this loss of liberty which warrants protest. While the Islamic Jihadist/Salafist movements are shaping the discourse of Western politics then terror is winning.

 

This is the price we pay for living in a liberal society and it is a price i am willing to pay, but i recognise others in the same society prefer safety to liberty. In Europe, where it is said there is an Islamist crisis, you are more likely to die choking on your food than die from a terrorist incident. I can live with that level of risk and am thankful to the various security agencies for keeping the risk that low, but no more liberties need be removed to further reduce it.

 

The more broad issue of how much immigration a country can economically and culturally handle is is another question, and one which i imagine could have a reasonable estimate if it were not so laden with various political biases. But dictating migration policy based on data and model based projections in probably too much to ask for at the moment: our politics relies on charm not data.

All valid points and all points the Ban fails to address.

[Prometheus]

All valid points and all points the Ban fails to address.

 

Worse, it could exacerbate the situation. The Jihadists want a Holy War, this is one step further towards accommodating them.

[Ten oz]

 

Worse, it could exacerbate the situation. The Jihadists want a Holy War, this is one step further towards accommodating them.

Yeah, as with seemingly everything Trump does there are a few different problems. The ban is concept is a win for groups like ISIS and It is a recruiting tool, restricts their victims ability to flee. The ban also fails to target countries where terrorists who have attacked on U.S. soil have been from. That raises question about the actually purpose of the ban and possible conflicts of interest Trump may have. And the manner at which the ban was ordered shows Trump doesn't understand which agencies are responsible for what nor does he appear to trust any of his own agencies.

[EdEarl]

The courts have ruled the immigration EO invalid. However, they have no power to enforce the ruling, and Trump is ignoring the courts. The House and Senate can impeach the president. I think there is no way to make him comply.

 

I've noticed Fox News and Face the Nation have spoken against Trump, and they are controlled by the rich 1%. Perhaps these criticisms by major news organizations are testing popular opinion to see how impeachment would be viewed by the public. Although, I don't know of anything Trump has done to piss off the 1% enough they would want him impeached.