Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

I have heard this argument used a number of times by Trump supporters: "how could Trump discriminate against Muslims if 80% of all of all Muslims are not effected by his Muslim ban?"

You don't need to impact all possible of a group of people for your action to be discriminatory. For example, if Trump created a law that said "I will arrest all black people in Michigan" would you argue it didn't discriminate against black people since it didn't effect black people in the rest of the states? Especially if Trump earlier said he wanted to arrest all black people, and had a conversations with an adviser asking him to come up with a legal plan to arrest all black people.

 

A TERRORIST FROM ONE OF THE SEVEN COUNTRIES WILL DO AN ATTACK TODAY, COZ OF LIBTARDS.

SAD.

 

This case really didn't get into intent. This was mainly about the emergency stay. Specifically, the court ruled that the states of Washington and Minnesota demonstrated that there were harms associated with the ban while the DOJ failed to provide a compelling reason why the ban should be immediately enforced.

And yes courts can review sensitive information. There is a long history of deference to the executive branch but that doesn't mean that courts can't ask the question. The Bush Administration tried to say that courts should always defer to the executive on national security claims (without having to explain the claim) that in the Guantanamo cases around the rights of prisoners and it didn't work then either.

There will eventually be a case on the merits of the executive order and in that case you'll hear more discussion on intent and the first amendment. But this case was solely about the emergency stay. The DOJ made a laughable argument and lost. And it further justifies the position that Trump doesn't actually have a national security justification. This just seems like some arbitrary immigration measure.

 

Trump is dead right here, a decision that doesn't even address the relevant law is inexcusable

 

Trump has never read to the end of anything longer than a tweet.

 

The entire Trump administration thus far...

 

You've been waiting since November 11th to post that, huh?

 

"the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated"?? Why would Trump retweet this?

Aw! He doesn't know what "promulgated" means. . . . He thinks it means "rejected" or something.

I've heard of "libtard," but is there such a thing as "Donald J. Tard" at all?

 

I'm not one that hopes for failure. None of this is helping anyone. A president so unhinged and disconnected from reality. Counselors that literally are the devil and people that seem to be physically incapable of telling the truth about anything. Cabinet secretaries that are in no way, shape, or form qualified to discuss, let alone run the departments they're now in charge of.

This isn't fun. It's f***ing frightening the path they're leading us down less than a month in.

 

Anytime a law is challenged both sides must provide evidence. It's in the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

 

The panel did address the 1952 statute as part of their decision. It's in the document, for anyone to see.

 

LOL Trump

 

When you start any sentence with "Trump is dead right here", you know you've made a mistake

 

The state of Virginia is the next in what may be more states that will challenge Trump's [Muslim] Immigration ban. The challenge focuses on the travel restrictions imposed by the ban, rather than the four-month suspension of refugee admissions. Virginia says the state, its residents and its public universities are harmed by the policy. The case will be heard by Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

Lawyers for the state of Virginia are arguing in a federal court there is "overwhelming evidence" the policy "resulted from animus toward Muslims".

An interesting point made in the article addresses the argument from Trump supporters citing the 1952 law giving "the president power to suspend entry of "any class of aliens" when he finds their entry "would be detrimental" to the country." However, the law was revised in 1965 to stipulate that immigrants could not be denied a visa because of their race, sex, nationality or place of birth.

 

72 terrorists from the 7 banned countries

 

There was no relevant law. The 9th Circuit Judges have made a mockery of the law. The President has every right to do what he did and the court has no right to stop it. The left will sink to any level these days.

 

Interesting. Here's a better link with the information (Washington Examiner has a ton of popup ads for me):

http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

It isn't so clear to me if these people convicted of terrorist acts actually committed those acts in the US or abroad. Though perhaps that distinction shouldn't matter.

 

Amazing that you, other wingnuts, and Trump ignore the 1965 change to the 1952 law that Trump keeps citing. Stipulated that immigrants cannot be denied a visa on the basis of race, sex, nationality or place of birth.

 

Yeah. At the least it is up to the courts to decide which should take precedence. That's their job.