Courts likely to probe Trump's intent in issuing travel ban

[Srikcir]

The ban circus continues.

 

Now the Trump administration is asking the District Court to delay the trial while Trump considers other actions, ie., revoking the current ban order and replacing it or amending the ban order. A request that follows Trump's assertion that the District Court and Court of Appeals will bear responsibility for any terrorism incidents that occur while the ban is being restrained by the courts and allowing a flood of unvetted terrorists into the US.

 

Meanwhile Trump aide Stephen Miller continues to claim that court ruling against Donald Trump’s travel ban is "a judicial usurpation of power,” that "the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned,”

 

Bizarre to be asking for a court delay while informing the court that it has no power to review Trump's travel ban.

 

UPDATE: District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia granted  a preliminary injunction against the travel ban writing, "Maximum power does not mean absolute power."

Edited February 14, 2017 by Srikcir
Update

[mike324]

12 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

Schroedinger's immigrant...simultaneously stealing American jobs while at the same time getting tons of "free stuff" because they refuse to work.

 

Schroedinger's Immigrant is a theory and it ends there. You can only study Schrodinger's immigrant by looking in the box! At this point the duality of state is exposed and Schrodinger's immigrant no longer exist in a simultaneous state of 'lazy benefit claimant' and 'job thief'.  

 

Its music to the ears for those who are anti-immigrants and can't get pass of job competition.  The theory would hold if its true but how does one refuse to work and steal American jobs? Although they could draw social welfare but again, legal immigrants needs to be qualify for social welfare too, such as 10 of years work before retiring to receive social security. Many who are not well aware of the issues thinks legal immigrants can easily "steal", there are basic provisions in place to make it fair. There are of course loopholes, but majority of legal immigrants aren't using abusing the loophole to begin with. Not only that, there are also immigrants who are not stealing jobs or welfare because they are wealthy to begin with, they do not need both, hence the Schroedinger's Immigrant theory is invalid.

 

You can't simply label all legal immigrants as "job thief" and "stealing welfare".

 

The fact is and proven that legal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they draw in social spending like welfare. So its a plus for the country. If this wasn't the case, I would be in favor of reducing legal immigrants. Over 40% of the researchers in the US are legal immigrants or guests on visas (students/professors/professionals) that are helping contribute to the knowledge and advancement of US. This is also another big plus and huge advantage the US have over any other country. 

 

 

 

 

[Credo]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It continues

"until the country's representatives can figure out what the h__l is going on"

He is NOT calling for a permanent ban, and by only reporting the bit you did you propagate the vile media's  propaganda on Trump wanting to ban Muslims for being Muslim.

He said 'ban Muslims'.   That poppycock about 'until the country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,' means nothing.   He has no intention of figuring anything out and whatever anybody else figures out, doesn't count with Donald.   

 

A president can very easily slow the flow of people from countries to a trickle and make sure that only the most deserving of cases get through.   People who have direct connections to the US -- such as wives, minor children of American citizens.   They can set the criteria.   They can demand thorough investigation.   Essentially it is almost a ban, but not quite.   The President can then start to figure out 'what the hell is going on.'

 

His basic problem is he won't take responsibility for his actions.   He blew it with the EO which has a good chance of never getting implemented, he then refused to take responsibility for his blunder.   Instead, he blames the judges and the courts.   

 

He's a walking disaster with nuclear capabilities.   

[Traveler19491]

1 minute ago, mike324 said:

 

Schroedinger's Immigrant is a theory and it ends there. You can only study Schrodinger's immigrant by looking in the box! At this point the duality of state is exposed and Schrodinger's immigrant no longer exist in a simultaneous state of 'lazy benefit claimant' and 'job thief'.  

 

Its music to the ears for those who are anti-immigrants and can't get pass of job competition.  The theory would hold if its true but how does one refuse to work and steal American jobs? Although they could draw social welfare but again, legal immigrants needs to be qualify for social welfare too, such as 10 of years work before retiring to receive social security. Many who are not well aware of the issues thinks legal immigrants can easily "steal", there are basic provisions in place to make it fair. There are of course loopholes, but majority of legal immigrants aren't using abusing the loophole to begin with. Not only that, there are also immigrants who are not stealing jobs or welfare because they are wealthy to begin with, they do not need both, hence the Schroedinger's Immigrant theory is invalid.

 

You can't simply label all legal immigrants as "job thief" and "stealing welfare".

 

The fact is and proven that legal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they draw in social spending like welfare. So its a plus for the country. If this wasn't the case, I would be in favor of reducing legal immigrants. Over 40% of the researchers in the US are legal immigrants or guests on visas (students/professors/professionals) that are helping contribute to the knowledge and advancement of US. This is also another big plus and huge advantage the US have over any other country. 

 

 

 

 

 

You misunderstood the facetious nature of my comment. I was pointing to the ludicrous contradictions of the conservatives howling over these very things.

[mike324]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would like to agree with you on Saudi. Unfortunately, while they have all that oil it's not going to happen.

 

So you are giving Trump a free pass just because they have all the oil? What a compelling argument.

 

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. I'd quite like to see all the liberal tree huggers having to pick veges in the hot sun because all the cheap foreign labour was stopped. Unfortunately that's probably never going to happen.

I wonder why those voting for Trump and crying about job loss aren't picking the veggies when there are actually a shortage in that industry and labor needs to be imported? Wages too low? oh wait, did you forget which party did not want to raise the minimum wage?

[mike324]

2 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

You misunderstood the facetious nature of my comment. I was pointing to the ludicrous contradictions of the conservatives howling over these very things.

 

apologize I misunderstood!

[Ulic]

I am left scratching my head when it is called a Muslim ban when 85% of the

worlds Muslims were not included in the temporary 7 country ban.  So

with 85%of Muslims able to enter the US with the correct paperwork what

exactly makes it a Muslim ban.

[Traveler19491]

3 minutes ago, Ulic said:

I am left scratching my head when it is called a Muslim ban when 85% of the

worlds Muslims were not included in the temporary 7 country ban.  So

with 85%of Muslims able to enter the US with the correct paperwork what

exactly makes it a Muslim ban.

 

I don't know. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that all seven countries are majority Muslim and Trump having made numerous assertions during his campaign to banning all Muslims.

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The courts have said previous comments by the president may be used to determine his intent.  During elections, he did say he wanted a Muslim Ban.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Trump and his team are getting into more and more trouble, including the disaster just revealed here:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/mar-a-lago-north-korea-trump.html?emc=edit_ae_20170213&nl=todaysheadlines-asia&nlid=58582962

 

One of these events is going to get him.  How hard is the question.

He surely is leaving himself wide open. Good to see a Trump supporter in the picture freezing his jewels off. How appropriate as Trump controls his mind why not the rest of him as well. 

[Andaman Al]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Perhaps Trump is getting into strife because Obama didn't do what needed to be done, and it needs to be sorted now. In any event, IMO none of the people attacking the travel ban care about it because they just want to destroy Trump and will use any reason they can.

Trump is not getting into 'strife' because of anything Obama did or didn't do. Trump is getting into 'strife' because of what HE is doing AND saying.

 

 

5 hours ago, mike324 said:

So you are giving Trump a free pass just because they have all the oil? What a compelling argument.

 

I wonder why those voting for Trump and crying about job loss aren't picking the veggies when there are actually a shortage in that industry and labor needs to be imported? Wages too low? oh wait, did you forget which party did not want to raise the minimum wage?

And the Trump supporters seem to forget that not only do they want the illegals to do the fruit and vegetable picking, they are very happy themselves spending their time playing face book games and waiting for the social security cheques to arrive in the mail box.

 

If Trump is using national security as his reasoning and trying to prevent easy access to the USA from countries that are 'hotbeds' of terrorist activity then the courts would only be satisfied with that reasoning if countries like Saudi, with a proven track record of terrorist activity are banned also. Two countries in the world that are now at the forefront for recruiting ISIS terrorists are Indonesia and Malaysia. There are specific areas in these countries that are now becoming very dangerous. Why are they not on the banned list?

Edited February 14, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Opl]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you have a link to him saying he wanted to ban Muslims per se, and not saying that he wanted to ban immigration, TEMPORARILY, from nations that were likely to have terrorists that want to kill infidels? It is a fact that the nations that are most likely to harbour people that want to kill me because I am an infidel are Muslim.

I do not recall him saying that he wanted to ban Muslims just because of their religion, and in any event it was only till extreme vetting could be brought in, so that negates any attempt to say he doesn't want Muslims per se.

Perhaps Trump is getting into strife because Obama didn't do what needed to be done, and it needs to be sorted now. In any event, IMO none of the people attacking the travel ban care about it because they just want to destroy Trump and will use any reason they can.

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

 

" Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Opl

[Chicog]

I can save the court a lot of time and money.

It's called "Pandering to his base".

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

Trump rejects DHS intelligence report on travel ban

Officials in President Trump’s administration Friday downplayed an intelligence report by the Homeland Security Department that contradicts the White House’s main arguement for implementing a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The report, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, determined that the "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity."

The Trump administration has taken the position that immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries should be blocked from the U.S. due to their terror risk. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/25/trump-rejects-dhs-intelligence-report-on-travel-ban.html

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Trump rejects DHS intelligence report on travel ban

Officials in President Trump’s administration Friday downplayed an intelligence report by the Homeland Security Department that contradicts the White House’s main arguement for implementing a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The report, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, determined that the "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity."

The Trump administration has taken the position that immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries should be blocked from the U.S. due to their terror risk. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/25/trump-rejects-dhs-intelligence-report-on-travel-ban.html

The intelligence report found that in the past six years, foreign-born individuals who were “inspired” to strike in the U.S. came from 26 different countries. No surprise.

The White House called the report "politically motivated" - odd since the White House requested the report.

According to a White House official, "This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for." That's called politicizing intelligence.

[Andaman Al]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The intelligence report found that in the past six years, foreign-born individuals who were “inspired” to strike in the U.S. came from 26 different countries. No surprise.

The White House called the report "politically motivated" - odd since the White House requested the report.

According to a White House official, "This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for." That's called politicizing intelligence.

LMAO

 

So now any lawyer fighting the ban will simply present this Intelligence Assessment in court. It was requested by the Administration, they don't like it so they reject it. More fake news 

 

Watch out for the second Executive Order no matter how carefully worded to crash and burn. Funny as hell.

[craigt3365]

Seems to be some dissension in the ranks! LOL

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/25/politics/nsa-radical-islamic-terror-term-unhelpful/index.html

 

Quote

 

National security adviser: Term 'radical Islamic terrorism' isn't helpful

New national security adviser H.R. McMaster is already setting a strikingly different tone than his ousted predecessor, Michael Flynn, and President Donald Trump, saying the term "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't helpful for US goals.

 

At an all-hands meeting of the National Security Council on Thursday, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster said jihadist terrorists aren't true to their religion and that the use of the term "radical Islamic terrorism" doesn't help the US in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups, an official present at the session confirmed to CNN.

 

McMaster also spoke in starkly different terms about Russia, saying the talk about Moscow being a friend of Washington is over, the source said.