-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Why wasn't Tesla part of the 100 Tech Companies Signing against the Travel Ban?
- Thread starter apples1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Flentje forgot to mention the small detail that the media reports are quotes from the jackal and his inner circle.
Regarding the politics of this, the meme that "Obama did it too, and identified the countries" is BS.
Obama denied a Visa waiver to individuals of the listed countries who had visited Syria or Iraq. The clearly stated intention was to prevent open, unreviewed entry of citizens of the listed countries who were likely to be radicalized, active terrorists. The rationale was that a voluntary visit to a war zone without a good reason suggested participation. Somehow the jackal has decided to argue that, amongst other civilian victims, women and children trying to flee a war zone are equally suspicious.
The jackal's executive order is window dressing for Islamophobia and the intent is to stop muslim immigration or refugees. I actually understand and am not completely unsympathetic to this stance. After all, the European experience of large scale Turkish and Middle Eastern immigration to Europe has brought a host of ills. Just cut the BS and hypocrisy that this executive order is about identifying terrorists.
And now, a clue to the hapless racists: islamic terrorism in the US in the next few years will be from American and European, second generation muslims or convertees converted to radicalism. This executive order will do NOTHING to prevent it.
Last edited:
James Anders
Member
It's not based on religion. The EO clearly states this. You are avoiding the reality of the situation.
I don't believe there are immigration laws that eliminate national origin as a valid selector.
In any case, if IslamOphoby is the goal, why pick those countries? The 3 greatest Muslim populations are Indonesia, Pakistan, India which are not included. The 7 country list appears to be about the same number of Muslims as Indonesia alone has.
The country placed under the tightest restriction ranks 32 in the world in the percentage of Muslims in the population (Syria).
All seven of the countries have unstable governments with domestic regions that are off limits to the gov't forces.
There are no areas of Saudi Arabia that are off-limits to their military.
Pakistan? Well, they have been a problematic issues for decades now. In theory, their government is in control of the country, and on paper they are US Allies. Personally, I think Pakistan should be embargoed until they destroy their nuclear program, but that's just me.
Australia currently has 1200 Muslim immigrants that are being held off-shore. They are not allowed into Australia. 1/2 of Australians polled want to ban Muslim immigration.
Chopr147
Active Member
OK I get you don't like Trump but this is alot of hullabaloo over nothing. The law is crystal clear. The president , ANY president has the right to suspend immigrants based on his sole discretion. You may not like the law but it is clear. US Code 1182
We cannot have state "district" judges imposing their will on US Law! This goes far beyond just immigration now
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
So clear that a federal judge stayed the order. I find your pomposity amusing.
jeffro01
Active Member
LOL... Really??? The reality of the situation is quite simple. It's all a LIE, nothing but fear mongering. As I stated before you have a 1 in 3.64 BILLION chance of being killed by a refugee in the United States... What are you so afraid of? I couldn't imagine living in that much fear, I'd be afraid to get out of my own bed but then again, the odds of being killed by something randomly while laying in said bed are still LOWER than being killed by a refugee so...
I see you disliked my post, not surprising, it contained a fact, a statistic, and didn't line up with the fear mongering stereotyping you seem to be so damn fond of...
Jeff
jeffro01
Active Member
Tam
Well-Known Member
The verdict in response to Department of Justice to appeal the Temporary Restraint Order against Trump's Terrorist Ban is in:
"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."
That means the Obama's Muslim ban is now in effect, not Trump's Terrorist Ban.
With Obama's Muslim ban, if you don't have the paper work, then you are banned from entry. Just get your paper works (passport/visa) in order even if you are from 7 banned countries, then you can enter.
"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."
That means the Obama's Muslim ban is now in effect, not Trump's Terrorist Ban.
With Obama's Muslim ban, if you don't have the paper work, then you are banned from entry. Just get your paper works (passport/visa) in order even if you are from 7 banned countries, then you can enter.
jeffro01
Active Member
Would you stop irresponsibly saying "Obama's Muslim ban"...??? President Obama, at no point, banned Muslims. That's ridiculous and I suspect you know it.
Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
Jeff
Tam
Well-Known Member
Sorry. I stand corrected. It is wrong of me to try to be sarcastic with labeling when the label is not true.
Obama's immigration/anti-terrorist procedure was never a ban. It was a orderly process of slowing down for extra vetting and the flow of non-US citizens at US entry ports was never stopped even for 7 specified countries prior to Trump's administration as long as they got proper paper works.
Tam
Well-Known Member
The court is not very pleased in response to Justice Department lawyer with his idea (the 4 second pause "yes" answer) that the judiciary branch should not challenge President's executive order because the country is in so much danger with terrorists:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
"The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.”
...Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
....In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
"The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.”
...Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
....In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
Thank God for checks and balances at this time in history
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
No. My understanding is that is the specific job of Judges in District 9 to make rulings on any case of National significance. And the law is clear, the President of the United States of America must be able to defend his position by noting exactly what 'detriment' to the U.S. is likely due to the individuals or class of individuals he chooses to bar from our shores. Just saying, "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." won't cut it. Unless it is Leslie Nielsen. Then? OK, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Probably.
Checks and balances, three branches of government. Both Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole warned the Republican Party they were setting a dangerous precedent by impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton. They were told to shut up and sit down. Today, a POTUS must answer to a court of law and cannot hide behind 'National Security' concerns any longer. You can thank the Neo-Cons for that situation.
Read the ruling.
Only successful attacks on targets inside the US borders are ever to be considered in the name of national defense. Pretty much word for word. Using that criteria the USA had no right to enter WWII since the Japanese did not attack the USA. Hawaii was not one of the States.
The court noted that this EO is exactly like the felony of false imprisonment committed against US citizens in 1942.
If you say anything, at anytime in your life as a private citizen, then later are elected to public office of any kind, any document you are involved with must take into account anything you have said in the past. Actions are irrelevant, so are ink and paper signed documents by themselves. This pretty much abolishes contracts by government agencies while eroding free speech as well.
Specifying an exact metric such as 90 days on an official document is no longer sufficient. You need a mechanism to verify that numbers cannot change. Ever. No official document can be written without a guarantee that the future is static.
Am I the only person on earth who sees this as dangerous?
Chopr147
Active Member
Sometimes you read this decisions and look between the lines it appears they are looking for a reason, any reason to overturn or push thru. That was my opinion on the Obamacare tax Supreme Court ruling. I was unhappy about this one but decided to read the document before killing it.
I do not like the past statements as a citizen, reaction law rather than proactive and agree with you about the Japanese internment camps. That is more paranoid, Trump is Hitler Bullsh&^T. Despite what Dems think, you DO NOT have a RIGHT to enter this country.
Nope! Millions more feel this way but are quiet about it or worse,detached. Ignorance is bliss
I do not like the past statements as a citizen, reaction law rather than proactive and agree with you about the Japanese internment camps. That is more paranoid, Trump is Hitler Bullsh&^T. Despite what Dems think, you DO NOT have a RIGHT to enter this country.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
People have a right to enter the country... Legally.
The POTUS has the right to bar entry to this country... Legally.
If someone tries to enter or immigrate illegally they should surely be stopped. That can be filed under 'DUH.' for future reference.
But it remains illegal, and rightly so, to pass laws, enter proclamations, or enforce policy that is meant to discriminate on a basis of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. Yes. Illegal. Despite the fact that millions feel it should be otherwise.
Those factors can be legitimately and legally sidestepped when there is a time of war or when there is an eminent threat. And even then such actions upon review tend to be revealed as having been mistakes that must be apologized for.
Thank God their bigoted viewpoints remain largely silenced, detached, and marginalized. Because if they had their way things would be far worse for a lot more people worldwide.
There are a couple of movies that are rarely shown on television anymore since 9/11. They are 'Nighthawks' (1981) and 'The Siege' (1998). One shows an unpopular 'face' of terrorism, the other shows the dangers of bigotry and panic, both were filmed on location in New York City, and may have been re-edited to minimize scenes that have the World Trade Center in the background. Check them out, if you can.
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.
The POTUS has the right to bar entry to this country... Legally.
If someone tries to enter or immigrate illegally they should surely be stopped. That can be filed under 'DUH.' for future reference.
But it remains illegal, and rightly so, to pass laws, enter proclamations, or enforce policy that is meant to discriminate on a basis of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. Yes. Illegal. Despite the fact that millions feel it should be otherwise.
Those factors can be legitimately and legally sidestepped when there is a time of war or when there is an eminent threat. And even then such actions upon review tend to be revealed as having been mistakes that must be apologized for.
Thank God their bigoted viewpoints remain largely silenced, detached, and marginalized. Because if they had their way things would be far worse for a lot more people worldwide.
There are a couple of movies that are rarely shown on television anymore since 9/11. They are 'Nighthawks' (1981) and 'The Siege' (1998). One shows an unpopular 'face' of terrorism, the other shows the dangers of bigotry and panic, both were filmed on location in New York City, and may have been re-edited to minimize scenes that have the World Trade Center in the background. Check them out, if you can.
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.
The 9th based "meant to discriminate" not on the Executive Order or militant activity of the countries listed, but solely on words attributed to a private citizen who would later become involved in approving the Executive Order.
Nor did it base Meant to Discriminate on any actions the POTUS has taken, words said by the POTUS in office, or even the statistics of the populations of the affected countries. Syria has one of the highest Christian populations of the region.
They in essence proclaimed that our elected POTUS is and always will be a bigot therefore anything he signs is now signed by a bigot.
The 9th is too stupid to understand that rulings create precedent. Odd that judges would be ignorant of that, but what they wrote yesterday indicates just that. Or, they actually want to destroy the rule of Law in the US in the name of politics. Perhaps. I'd hate to think it was bribery.
jeffro01
Active Member
I don't think you're in a position to call a federal appeals court "too stupid to understand"... This is what grinds my gears about the right, when a court rules in your favor you react as if you've suddenly been handed a key to the moral high ground, but when you lose, the judge/court was making a political statement. Yet you have the audacity to call the left "snowflakes"...
Why can't you just admit that the EO was unlawful, and unconstitutional? Is it because it damages your idol or is it because you really are that bigoted and fearful? It was obvious to the court, to the people filing the lawsuit against it, and really to anyone anywhere who can read, that the entire purpose of this EO was to block Muslims from entering the country. It was in fact, at it's core, a Muslim ban. If you honestly think banning an entire religion of people from entering this country is constitutional then you're either delusional, or have a serious lacking in reading comprehension.
Jeff
Similar threads
