U.S. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump's travel ban

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, selftaopath said:

Terrorists killers pale by comparison to gun toting Americans. This link is informative:

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

Why would the USA want to bring more problems into the country? Don't they have enough?

No country should bring immigrants in unless they want them! Refugees should go to the nearest safe country to be set up in camps paid for by all UN countries until they are able to return home.

[Grubster]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

No. It means you are either looking the wrong way or the subject matter has become too deep for you.

 

Possibly both.

Your subject matter is very shallow and easy to understand. 

 

 I think you are the kind of guy that sets up perfectly for the Trojan horse. Good luck.

[Andaman Al]

54 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Why would the USA want to bring more problems into the country? Don't they have enough?

No country should bring immigrants in unless they want them! Refugees should go to the nearest safe country to be set up in camps paid for by all UN countries until they are able to return home.

And who is the nearest 'safe' country? Why should they shoulder all the burden for a war that started with the uncalled for, illegal invasion of a sovereign nation by the US and Brits, and now the US don't want any responsibility  for clearing up their own mess. A bit like all the eco warriors at Glastonbury. They all talk the talk but want everyone else to clear up the crap they make.

[Redline]

His little hands are shaking.  Hopefully, they have figured everything out by now because:

 

Trump's March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.

 

You can bet there will be a lot of problems, even though they have had nearly enough time to prepare as the original bans would have existed~ending in total in 9 days from now.  Good luck

[lostlink]

9 hours ago, selftaopath said:

Yea that's what Putin keeps saying. He's so proud to have "his man" in the U.S. White House.

 

I wonder if Putin also has "dirt" on the RussiaReps aka republicans that condone 45's un-patriotic behavior?

Cool story bro. Still mesmerized with the collusion illusion by the MSM?

Edited June 27, 2017 by lostlink

[Grubster]

53 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

And who is the nearest 'safe' country? Why should they shoulder all the burden for a war that started with the uncalled for, illegal invasion of a sovereign nation by the US and Brits, and now the US don't want any responsibility  for clearing up their own mess. A bit like all the eco warriors at Glastonbury. They all talk the talk but want everyone else to clear up the crap they make.

I said the UN nations should pay for it, that usually means mostly the US. The host country would be paid nicely for this if it were up to me but it isn't. Had it been up to me Saddam would still be in power but Gaddafi would be dead, but that wasn't up to me either.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.  

[meechai]

17 hours ago, NanLaew said:

With regard to his opinion, I would suggest that living under a dictatorship gives one remarkable insight.

 

What's your excuse?

Unlike yourself I do not need one.  Since I do not live under a dictatorship I need not claim how enlightening oppression is. But by all means  if that is your thing 

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.  

[gk10002000]

in general I don't see anything legally wrong with the ban.  Yes the countries involved are primarily muslim, but that in no way means the ban is discriminatory.  And even if somebody in the USA didn't like the ban, the ban applies to non usa citizens so any rights in the constitution are not necessarily applicable to foreigners.

[Srikcir]

21 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

any rights in the constitution are not necessarily applicable to foreigners.

The US Constitution does apply to all members of the Trump administration including Trump himself and White House policies cannot violate the constitution regardless what people are affected.

 

Interesting that you say "not necessarily applicable to foreigners" that suggests you believe in some circumstances that the constitution can apply to foreigners. For that you are correct. As the US Constitution applies to "people" and not just to American citizens, foreigners in the US, its territories and US sovereign properties by whatever reason are also protected by the Constitution, albeit the range of protections is not as broad as applies to American citizens, ie., Americans cannot be deported nor banned from the country.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, gk10002000 said:

in general I don't see anything legally wrong with the ban.  Yes the countries involved are primarily muslim, but that in no way means the ban is discriminatory.  And even if somebody in the USA didn't like the ban, the ban applies to non usa citizens so any rights in the constitution are not necessarily applicable to foreigners.

The problem is that Trump said he was going to ban all Muslims and then he did an Executive Order that suggested that was his intent.   He later reiterated that it was, indeed, a travel ban.  

 

The President has very broad powers in the area of immigration.   The President can effectively implement a ban, but an EO is not the appropriate way of doing it.   Trump selected 6 countries already targeted by Obama.   Severely limiting those eligible from a country is quite legal; banning everyone is questionable.  

 

Basically the Supreme Court has set forth the conditions under which a ban can and can't be implemented.   They have said a bona fide connection is needed and then set forth some examples.   This is exactly what Trump should have instructed the State Department to do in the first place, but he would not have gotten the political mileage had he done so.

 

 

[PattayaJames]

If Trump says he is going to make a 20% tax cut, and then delivers a 10% tax cut.

How much is the tax cut?

[gk10002000]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

The problem is that Trump said he was going to ban all Muslims and then he did an Executive Order that suggested that was his intent.   He later reiterated that it was, indeed, a travel ban.  

 

The President has very broad powers in the area of immigration.   The President can effectively implement a ban, but an EO is not the appropriate way of doing it.   Trump selected 6 countries already targeted by Obama.   Severely limiting those eligible from a country is quite legal; banning everyone is questionable.  

 

Basically the Supreme Court has set forth the conditions under which a ban can and can't be implemented.   They have said a bona fide connection is needed and then set forth some examples.   This is exactly what Trump should have instructed the State Department to do in the first place, but he would not have gotten the political mileage had he done so.

 

 

agreed.  He should simply have instructed the department and agency heads to scrutinize more thoroughly.

[YetAnother]

On 6/27/2017 at 4:10 AM, webfact said:

or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders.

green card holders are NOT permanent residents

[Scott]

30 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

green card holders are NOT permanent residents

I am pretty sure Green Card Holders are permanent residents.   There may be conditions placed on it, but they are a permanent resident as long as it is not revoked or abandoned.  

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

I am pretty sure Green Card Holders are permanent residents.   There may be conditions placed on it, but they are a permanent resident as long as it is not revoked or abandoned.  

United States lawful permanent residency, informally known as green card, is the immigration status of a person authorized to live and work in the United States of America permanently. Green cards are valid for 10 years for permanent residents, and 2 years for conditional permanent residents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_(United_States)

 

[bushdoctor]

On 6/27/2017 at 0:50 PM, NanLaew said:

With regard to his opinion, I would suggest that living under a dictatorship gives one remarkable insight.

 

What's your excuse?

I live under a military dictatorship too. Ask me what I think? Or is it only applicable to those who agree with your views? 

The hypocrisy here is comical. 

[gk10002000]

18 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The US Constitution does apply to all members of the Trump administration including Trump himself and White House policies cannot violate the constitution regardless what people are affected.

 

Interesting that you say "not necessarily applicable to foreigners" that suggests you believe in some circumstances that the constitution can apply to foreigners. For that you are correct. As the US Constitution applies to "people" and not just to American citizens, foreigners in the US, its territories and US sovereign properties by whatever reason are also protected by the Constitution, albeit the range of protections is not as broad as applies to American citizens, ie., Americans cannot be deported nor banned from the country.

And there have been many supreme court rulings applying constitutional rights to non US citizens.

[hawker9000]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 5:48 PM, selftaopath said:

He inches toward dictatorship each and everyday.  That is his top priority. I have little confidence in his RussiaReps aka republicans putting America First. 

ROFL

[hawker9000]

3 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

And there have been many supreme court rulings applying constitutional rights to non US citizens.

Oh please.  Get a clue.  The discussion is about visas, not about criminal prosecutions or anything else.  And the Constitution does not give foreigners any "right" to a visa.  They may request it, and the US has by right of sovereignty every discretion to grant or refuse the request.  Period. 

[gk10002000]

41 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh please.  Get a clue.  The discussion is about visas, not about criminal prosecutions or anything else.  And the Constitution does not give foreigners any "right" to a visa.  They may request it, and the US has by right of sovereignty every discretion to grant or refuse the request.  Period. 

Um no.  There have been many cases where the courts have intervened on immigration, visas, etc.  Elián_González case is an example of when the supreme court refused to hear the case, but the lower courts certainly could have granted the lad asylum and all the associated paperwork that goes with that, which includes a visa

[hawker9000]

Just now, gk10002000 said:

Um no.  There have been many cases where the courts have intervened on immigration, visas, etc.  Elián_González case is an example of when the supreme court refused to hear the case, but the lower courts certainly could have granted the lad asylum and all the associated paperwork that goes with that, which includes a visa

And if they had, they'd have gotten it wrong, as non-constitutionally oriented judges & justices so often do.  That's why a judicial housecleaning is so badly needed to get rid of social agenda-driven jurists, beginning with the leftist justices on the Supreme Court.

[Si Thea01]

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 7:48 AM, selftaopath said:

He inches toward dictatorship each and everyday.  That is his top priority. I have little confidence in his RussiaReps aka republicans putting America First. 

Do you truly believe this?   I would have thought the constitution and citizens of the USA would prevent this occurring. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Si Thea01]

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 0:50 PM, NanLaew said:

With regard to his opinion, I would suggest that living under a dictatorship gives one remarkable insight.

 

What's your excuse?

And his remarkable insight is?  Sure he has an opinion but that is all it is, his opinion and remains so unless he can elaborate on how the situation in Thailand has affected him. Would love to see a response as I also live in the north east and I haven't been effected nor have any of my friends. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Si Thea01

[Scott]

I think we can dispense with the dictatorship remarks.   This topic is about the Trump travel ban and the Supreme Court.  

 

Please stay on topic.  

 

[lostlink]

Happy Travel Ban Day!  Starts tomorrow.

[riclag]

Supreme Court allows President Trump's travel ban. vote 7 to 2.Two of the nine justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented. Another win for  America and American values.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/supreme-court-allows-president-trumps-travel-ban-to-go-fully-into-effect.html

[TonyClifton]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

Supreme Court allows President Trump's travel ban. vote 7 to 2.Two of the nine justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented. Another win for  America and American values.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/supreme-court-allows-president-trumps-travel-ban-to-go-fully-into-effect.html

Damn right it's a win.  A win for everyone. It's constitutional.  

[webfact]

continues here:

 

U.S. top court lets Trump's latest travel ban go into full effect

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: International passengers arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Dulles, Virginia, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan/Files

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts.

 

Full story: https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1014472-us-supreme-court-lets-trumps-latest-travel-ban-go-into-full-effect/

 

//CLOSED//

/Admin