February 8, 2017

"Even a 'bad high school student' would rule in my favor."

Said Donald Trump.

The "even" is horribly funny.

Shedding new meaning on...

133 comments:

David Begley said...

All of those questions on the merits by the Circuit panel were completely wrong. Questions should have been on procedure. Not a single question on so-called nationwide jurisdiction.

AReasonableMan said...

Presumably the good ones wouldn't.

rehajm said...

Evoking Obama for the liberal judges.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well...If you ARE getting your education from today's union controlled public schools...you are poorly educated. You learn practically nothing and have a high likelihood of graduating as a semi-literate, nonfunctional, ignoramus.

Poorly educated. Sad!

Fernandinande said...

I would rule in his favor because I'm a high-school dropout.

Lehnne said...

Why anyone thinks Deep State wants an educated populace escapes me. What a half of century of evidence is not sufficient?

buwaya said...

Negative value of education, of the "liberal arts" anyway - it doesnt really help if those of poor character get it, as it just helps in rationalizing poor ideas.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Seems pretty cut and dry, but IANAL.

Mark O said...

Many high school debaters could have done better than some of the participants.

Spiros Pappas said...

Bad high school students still go to college, they just don't graduate. These kids need an alternative to open admissions and less selective colleges (both two- and four-year). They need good jobs from the get go. "EVEN" liberal America get's it. These little punks are going to medical school or law school or getting a PhD in anything.

traditionalguy said...

He leaves out the Penumbras that kill selected laws. They are emanating everywhere these days.

It has become a rock, paper, stick game. And Seattle Federal District Court says it holds the Big Stick as The Rod of Sole Authority. Congress is only paper that dissolves when hit by the Stick . The President is only rock the smashed by the Stick's Powers.

See, Marbury v. Madison. In that last footnote it says, " George Soros Wins."

MaxedOutMama said...

But would a good high school student rule for him?

Doesn't matter - this is a winner for him in the court of public opinion! Nothing makes people more nervous about immigration from such countries like being told that if it gets dangerous, the judges won't let them curtail it. Nothing.

WillRobinson said...

"Well...If you ARE getting your education from today's union controlled public schools...you are poorly educated. You learn practically nothing and have a high likelihood of graduating as a semi-literate, nonfunctional, ignoramus.

Poorly educated. Sad!"

I thought Trump went to prestigious private schools.

WillRobinson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MaxedOutMama said...

I am trying to subdue my laughter, which is tinged with sadness as I watch the traditional Democratic Party being shoved off the rim of a volcano into the lava bubbles below by a batch of purportedly liberal leaning judges.

The Ninth Circuit is creating a situation in which American voters are going to opt to fire the judges entirely from jurisdiction over these cases, and to do that, they are going to have to depose a bunch more Democrats in Congress.

The Donald, much as he rubs me the wrong way, is going directly to the heart of the issue with this comment.

1) Who has the right to determine immigration policy - the Judiciary or the Executive under powers granted by the Legislature?
2) If the justification for this order is material and reviewable by judges with prior restraint on Executive action, than it is the Judiciary.
3) If it is the Judiciary, then the election we just had is, in part, invalidated. How individuals vote for Congress and the President doesn't have the power to adjust our security stance on immigration.
4) OMG.

A bad high school student probably is better at understanding the real implications of this than a panel of Ninth Circuit judges.

Chuck said...

It would have been a lot easier to defend Trump's Executive Order, if Trump hadn't been so stupid, in the first place, to suggest "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

That's on Trump, and Trump alone.

Having seen a lot of Trump in connection with this litigation, and having read Trump's deposition in the Trump University litigation, and having seen parts of his testimony in Trump's lawsuit versus the author of "Trump Nation," and having practiced in litigation for more than 30 years, I have to say that Donald Trump is the nightmare of all legal clients. He's one of the worst and most undisciplined witnesses I have ever seen.

But this is politics. And I think that in truth, Trump has always been very happy to have called for a "Muslim ban." And this recent EO was supposed to come as close as lawyers could plausibly get, to a "Muslim ban." And the reason that Trump is fighting so hard to preserve the EO is for his own vanity and self-image, and to make the same general point that he was making in his "total and complete shutdown" campaign debut. Which is to cater to a political base that would really like to see a "Muslim ban."

I know that there are some interesting legal issues in this case. And to be sure, the Trump side of the case has some serious merit. To a far lesser degree, there might be some actual security concerns (but I don't think so). But mostly, this is all about the sociopathology of Donald Trump. And seeing his speech this morning only emphasizes that fact for me.

Chuck said...

Maxed Out Mama:

Question for you. And this is a hypothetical because I think that some skilled lawyers tried hard to craft something at President Trump's direction that simulated "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on," but in a form that might pass scrutiny with a federal court.

So the question for you is this: If a President thought that the national security would be enhanced by "a [temporary] complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," do you think that such a presidential order would be legal?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck,


Why does it matter what he said during the campaign? Aside from it being your only possible objection, why is it even remotely valid?

DanTheMan said...

> If a President thought that the national security would be enhanced by "a [temporary] complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," do you think that such a presidential order would be legal?


A question for you: Does every Muslim living outside of the US have a right to enter the United States?

Chuck said...

DanTheMan said...
...
A question for you: Does every Muslim living outside of the US have a right to enter the United States?

Easy answer; No. In general, aliens do not "have a right to enter the United States." But some aliens (green card holders and processed refugees pursuant to treaties for which the U.S. is a signatory might be examples) have Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection in how the U.S. handles their immigration status.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WillRobinson said...

IIRC, the Judges yesterday mentioned Giuliani's words, regarding the fact that Trump asked him how to make a "Muslim ban" be legal. I don't think they were fooled. Intent is important, no?

traditionalguy said...

The MoJo of the Resistance financed by Soros is an Impeachment of this President that they flatly refuse to acknowledge is President.

This Attorney General and Judge just followed their orders from Soros and did that. Soros being European expects he can get a resignation out of a Judicial Vote of No Confidence.

This case amounts to a special Constitutional Convention called to vote that the existing Constitution's Presidential Powers are revoked.

I expect Soros's next move will have to be banning DJT from Twitter and from MSM appearances, like CNN tried out on his spokesman, KellyAnn.

Unknown said...

I find it funny that Chuck is so concerned with the rights of the Muslims.

I'm Mormon. I distinctly recall the government specifically targeting Mormons in the 1800's. All legal, all upheld by the Supreme Court.

Mormons lost the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold public office; even the right of spousal immunity. We were citizens.
Did not matter. James Buchanan sent an army to attack Mormons and specifically Mormons. Legal.

The evidence of Mormon terrorism? There's been one, possibly two incidents ever recorded. Didn't matter, did it? Supreme Court, 9-0 said you can strip the right to vote from Mormons. Davis v. Beecon. The US government seized all Mormon church property, worship buildings included, and never paid a dime for them. All legal.

And Chuck thinks it's illegal to prevent non-citizen Muslims from entering the US? Please.

--Vance

Chuck said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
Chuck,
Why does it matter what he said during the campaign? Aside from it being your only possible objection, why is it even remotely valid?


I don't actually have any objections to the Trump EO. I don't have any sort of conclusive opinion on the EO, as being valid or invalid. I'm an agnostic, for the most part.

The only reason that I conclude, with total assurance, that Trump's anti-Muslim statements matter, is because they became the subject of questions from the Ninth Circuit Judges. After the Plaintiff states also made them a subject of their pleadings. That's the fact. They are the subject of a court dispute now. Right or wrong. If I had been Trump's lawyer from the start, I'd have told him not to make such statements. And if Trump had followed that advice, he'd have fewer problems now.

I don't care what you think, on the merits. I also know that you don't care what I think, on the merits. We actually might not disagree too much, on the merits of Trump's EO. (But I'm not saying, in any event.)

What I am saying, is that there is now a dispute over the import of what Trump said. No matter what, you can't argue that. There is a dispute. It's on the record from yesterday, and it is in the pleadings. And it is because of what Trump said in the first instance.

SandiC said...

"The MoJo of the Resistance financed by Soros is an Impeachment of this President that they flatly refuse to acknowledge is President."

I recall when liberals would invoke the name of the Kochs as the evil villains, it was scoffed at.

Achilles said...

Chuck asks...

"So the question for you is this: If a President thought that the national security would be enhanced by "a [temporary] complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," do you think that such a presidential order would be legal?"

>Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate<

So to answer your question, yes, it would be legal. Only an illiterate fuck or someone who wants to erase our borders would think it is not legal.

You can't find a word in the constitution that would support the right of people to come to this country. You think you can change this fact with words. You think you can overcome common sense with bad decisions from liberal judges. You are wrong.

It is not in the best interests of the citizens of the United States to import more people who believe in sharia law. We have the right and the will to overcome the globalist shitheads like you that want to erase our borders. Keep pushing Chuck. Your democrat party won't break 40 senators after 2018 and after we pass voter ID laws democrats won't be able to import voters anymore.

We are taking our country back.

Chuck said...

Unknown/Vance:

You fuck head. That is one of the worst mischaracterizations of my writing I have ever seen on these comments pages. Which is saying a lot, since I get misquoted and mischaracterized on a daily basis here.

I am NOT "defending" any particular Muslims, or Muslim rights. I didn't take a position on the substance of Trump's order. How the hell did you miss that part?

Achilles said...

2/8/17, 11:23 AM
Blogger WillRobinson said...
"IIRC, the Judges yesterday mentioned Giuliani's words, regarding the fact that Trump asked him how to make a "Muslim ban" be legal. I don't think they were fooled. Intent is important, no?"

You think Americans want sharia law. You are wrong.

Achilles said...

Blogger Chuck said...

"I am NOT "defending" any particular Muslims, or Muslim rights. I didn't take a position on the substance of Trump's order. How the hell did you miss that part?"

The place where no matter what the issue is you bash trump. Trump is leading this country back from the edge and the left has to discredit him before they can take power again.

You are either stupid, or you are the vanguard trying to bring trump down. Either way you are on the other side.

Unknown said...

How did I "Miss" that? I didn't. I fully recognized your dance of "How can I bash Trump and Trump supporters here? I'll attack his statements on Muslim bans!"

Then you started arguing with others whether it would be legal to ban Muslims from entering the US, clearly implying that you support Muslim immigration over security concerns.

I merely pointed out that Muslims have it far, far easier than Mormons got from the establishment GOP in the 1800's. You know, from people like you then, Mr. "Lifelong Republican." Heck, I remember when you defended throwing Kim Davis in Jail, for her beliefs. It's something you say is bad and wrong when we apply it to Muslims.

We all know which side you are on, Chuck. Should we implement the Miller Anti-polygamist act against the Muslims? Would that be legal? It was back then! Why shouldn't we do that now to the Muslims who openly want to conquer our country?

--Vance

Chuck said...

Achilles:

Thank you. You've proven my point better than I could have with five more posts. There is a sizable (but minority, for sure) Trump base that thinks a "Muslim ban" would have been fine. You are obviously one of them. And I think that this whole thing was intended -- first and foremost, and before any national security concerns -- to please yokels like you. As it clearly has.

I remind you that Kellyanne Conway, and Rudy Giuliani, and all of the Trump talking heads, and Special Counsel to the Deparment of Justice August Flentje, all say that the current EO is "not a Muslim ban" and that they had no intent to create a Muslim ban. That's because none of them think that a "Muslim ban" would have ever survived for a New York minute in A-N-Y federal court.

If this current order survives, I GUARANTEE YOU that in the order a federal judge (or justice) will recite the fact that "this is not a case of a Muslim ban."

damikesc said...

So the question for you is this: If a President thought that the national security would be enhanced by "a [temporary] complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," do you think that such a presidential order would be legal?

Chuck, if the President ordered the State Dept to stop issuing visas PERIOD, it'd be legal. Congress passed the law and courts have no standing on foreign policy.

IIRC, the Judges yesterday mentioned Giuliani's words, regarding the fact that Trump asked him how to make a "Muslim ban" be legal. I don't think they were fooled. Intent is important, no?

Obama EXPLICITLY said In multiple interviews that Obamacare was not a tax.

On what grounds did the SCOTUS argue that it was legal?

You know, since words matter.

Hagar said...

Yes, Chuck, it would be legal, and no, WillR, intent does not matter.
There would be a political donnybrook in Congress, but it is not the Judiciary's business to get into the politics of it.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Thank you. You've proven my point better than I could have with five more posts. There is a sizable (but minority, for sure) Trump base that thinks a "Muslim ban" would have been fine. You are obviously one of them. And I think that this whole thing was intended -- first and foremost, and before any national security concerns -- to please yokels like you. As it clearly has.

So Chuck thinks we need more sharia law and he doesn't mind he and his liberal friends admit this. You and the democrats should stone some adultering whores and chuck some gay people off a building.

MaxedOutMama said...

Chuck - it is actually CONGRESS that gives the authority to the putative President that does this, and if Congress had passed a law that gave the authority to the President to do this, it probably would be. That's because if Congress had passed the law, it would be:
A) Subject to override from highly irate citizens, and
B) Presumably based on some real concern, such as being effectively at war with the vast majority of Muslims. (Note that this does not seem remotely conceivable.)

It would not be legal for a President to do this without authorization from Congress, because it is CONGRESS to whom the Constitution grants the power to make immigration, naturalization and deportation decisions. And Congress has not granted any president any such authority to prevent immigration by religion (although it has granted the president the authority to grant favored status to refugees who may be endangered by being a religious minority).

Note that the hypothetical law passed by Congress could be reviewed by the Judiciary, and, I would point out, that's a damned good thing, which power it appears may be endangered by this latest exercise in virtue signaling, which is NOT a good thing. Furthermore, such a law would not prevent any immigration as long as the person who wished to get a visa were willing to state that he/she was not a Muslim, which is why such a law will never be passed. So I would think you might take some aspirin and drink a lot of cold water - the fever dreams will pass.

This is not remotely what you just claimed it is. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of Muslims. It focuses on nationality rather than religion. It applies to countries that were chosen under a law which enumerated four, and gave the authority to the President to add other countries. The list of countries affected was not even generated by this president. Yes, these facts do matter. They matter very much.

And the basis for the law, and for the addition of the countries to the list by the prior administration, is that we are effectively at war with some significant groups in each of these countries. Except for Iran, we have been engaged in active military operations in each of these countries during the last year. Internal order has broken down in these countries, or some significant portion of the government is highly hostile to the United States. The leaderships of several of these groups have explicitly called to all adherents and sympathizers to attack the West and the United States.

The situation here is far more like halting immigration of Italian and German nationals after we joined WWII. We are at war. No one is even pretending that we are not, because war was declared ON US. Our enemies in this war seem to be even worse than the twisted Himmlerian nightmare of the SS-racialists.

And the FBI has given numerous briefings to Congress saying that they have terrible problems effectively vetting immigrants from these regions due to being unable to interact with the governments and to effectively verify identity, much less history. Read this article before you blather on about a Muslim ban:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06/a-dangerous-world-whats-at-stake-when-syrian-refugees-are-smuggled-to-us.html

No sane court would want to intervene in this. It's an effed-up mess of extreme proportions, and there is not any feel-good solution.

Chuck said...

damikesc said...
...
Chuck, if the President ordered the State Dept to stop issuing visas PERIOD, it'd be legal. Congress passed the law and courts have no standing on foreign policy.


No; I couldn't care less about that answer, because then you have changed the question. It isn't a religious-based restriction, if ALL visas were canceled. And, the issue of "visa issuance" doesn't answer the problem of refugees, pursuant to U.S. treaty obligations.

No; it is a peculiar problem, when the hypothetical is simply and purely a "Muslim ban."

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
...
So Chuck thinks we need more sharia law and he doesn't mind he and his liberal friends admit this. You and the democrats should stone some adultering whores and chuck some gay people off a building.


You're angry that someone else is today's leader in the clubhouse, for misquoting and mischaracterizing me, right? And you thought you'd try to catch up, right?

Achilles said...

For Chuck the illiterate fuck:

Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

I know you don't want to deal with this. But we are 100% within our rights to keep people out who want to chop the clitoris's off of all women, think women should be beaten daily and sold as property, think gay people should be thrown off roofs, think all apostates and infidels in particular jews need to be killed and that indiscriminate mass murder of infidels is ok.

You can call it a religion all you want. If I made a religion that said it is ok to beat and kill all people who disagree with me and subjugate women I would be locked up because I am not a democrat.

Francisco D said...

Chuck,

Your vulgar ad hominem attacks just point to the worthlessness of your arguments and your sick obsession with Mr. Trump.

You are no longer amusing.

Chuck said...

Hahaha; what a horror, for Lawprof Ann Althouse. The commenters on her precious blog (a group dominated by hostess-coddled Trumpkins) are in wide agreement that a ban on Muslim entry into the United States would be perfectly legal.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The only reason that I conclude, with total assurance, that Trump's anti-Muslim statements matter, is because they became the subject of questions from the Ninth Circuit Judges.

The problem is that the judges are ruling on what was said previously and in a campaign as opposed to what is actually happening and the substance of the EO. They are ruling based on emotion and feelings instead of the letter of the law.

It doesn't matter what Trump 'said'. What matters is what he has done.

Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate


The EO temporarily bans immigrants and entrance from certain selected geographical areas. Not muslims or anything else on that category. Geographical. Note that the Nationality Act also allow the ban or suspension of any class or aliens. That could conceivable mean Muslims or Hindus or Scientologists. Although how you would be able to determine the contents of a person's mind is problematical. It is easier to determine the geographical area from which they are immigrating or traveling.

The order was rolled out badly and existing green card holders or those who are currently legitimately in the US should have been exempted and the people who were charged with executing the order should have been better informed and trained.

It doesn't matter if you or anyone else likes it. It is legal. It also doesn't matter what Trump said previously in his campaigning or what anyone else, like Giuliani says. It is that the substance of the order and the power to issue such is within the powers of the Chief Executive of the Country.

sunsong said...

I don't see this issue or the negative impact it is having as being a joke.

Jackson Browne lives in the balance

Achilles said...

Chuck said...


If you were an actual republican you would know that the left has been attacking our intentions and mischaracterizing our words forever. Even if my policies actually result in the outcomes I say I want you people have been lying about what I want, so fuck off.

But you aren't a republican or you are a really stupid republican. And the results of your policy is to let in more sharia law. If you want policy that ensures more sharia law you must want more sharia law. Goose meet Gander.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Class OF aliens.

So yes. It would be legal to ban Muslims. Unpopular and really unable to be effectively enforced and basically useless.

James Kahn said...

IANAL, but it seems me the law is at least ambiguous on whether a Muslim ban would be legal. There are conflicting statutes, but this from 8 US Code 1182: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

would seem to override everything else. That doesn't mean liberal judges wouldn't find some reason to overrule it, of course.

Unknown said...

My point is simple and Chuck hates it, because he's a Muslim sympathizer.

What the US did to the Mormons, all perfectly legal, dwarfs anything even remotely hinted at against Muslims. Even Chuck's hysterical fantasies about a Muslim Immigration ban pales in comparison with what this country has already legally done targeting a specific religion.

So yes, Trump banning Muslims from entering the US is legal. Heck, even stripping Muslims of their right to vote is legal--at least the Supreme Court said you could do it to Mormons.

Are Muslims more privileged than Mormons? Well the Mormons didn't have the media, the entertainment industry, or the avowed support of the Democrat party. They were easy targets.

But Muslims have Chuck to defend their rights to murder, rape and kill and to pour into the country in massive numbers to prey on the citizenry. And they also have the Democrat party, who supports jailing Christians but letting Muslims throw gays off of roofs.

--Vance

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
Hahaha; what a horror, for Lawprof Ann Althouse. The commenters on her precious blog (a group dominated by hostess-coddled Trumpkins) are in wide agreement that a ban on Muslim entry into the United States would be perfectly legal.

My religion says it is ok to kill all democrats unless they join the republican party and support our policies. You must respect my religion.

MaxedOutMama said...

And Chuck (and others who are pushing this "Muslim ban" nonsense): Please read the article that I just posted. Here's the link again:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06/a-dangerous-world-whats-at-stake-when-syrian-refugees-are-smuggled-to-us.html

If we do not offer some above-the-board way for Christians/Yazidis, etc, who are fleeing these regions due to what amounts to ethnic/religious purging to get in, we are only feeding the networks of smugglers and faked passports, which is a security danger.

It is a FACT, not some Trumpian delusion, that only Muslims are living in the refugee camps and getting processed through the UN. So the religions/ethnic minorities from the region are either shit out of luck or thrown on dark networks, which CREATES a security problem for the US. If we could possibly mitigate that, we should.

Peter said...

"There is a sizable (but minority, for sure) Trump base that thinks a "Muslim ban" would have been fine."

The question is not whether or not such a ban would be "fine" but whether the president would be acting within his authority if he were to issue an executive order for such a ban.

For if he would be acting within his authority to do so then issuing an executive order that merely bans entry from a small percentage of Muslim-majority countries would surely be so far within the president's authority that no one should question his authority to do so.

What we really, really think is that the matter should be decided on that basis of whether or not the president has the Constitutional and statutory authority to do what he did. Regardless of whether or not it is "fine."

Because what we really, really think is that questions of what is or is not "fine" belong entirely within the political sphere, not the judiciary.

Because the legitimate authority of the judiciary branch of government extends to and ends with questions of law.

Chuck said...

Achilles; you are not getting it. I take no issue with that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. What you don't seem to understand is that a complex layer of Constitutional due process and equal protection principles may arise with any application of that statute.

The Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't get imposed in a vacuum. People have Constitutional rights, within statutory schemes.

We have a Tax Code. Within that code, you have Constitutional protections. We have a Drug Enforcement Act. Again, it must comply with your Constitutional protections. Ditto the Voting Rights Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Trademark Protection Act. Et cetera, et cetera.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

How about this? The restrictions on the immigration of Muslims...or if you prefer from those geographic locations designated... are that they can only settle, work and live in certain geographic areas of the United States.

I vote for the neighborhood that Chuck lives in as one of those designated areas. Maybe also...Beverly Hills, Martha's Vineyard and other high class toney places where those who want to impose this crap on us, live their nice sheltered lives in gated communities.

Watch their tune change.

DanTheMan said...

>> Intent is important, no?

No, it's irrelevant when doing something completely legal and within his authority.


Unknown said...

Wait, what? Chuck, please enumerate for us what United States constitutional rights a Muslim born and raised in Syria has. Especially cite the part of the Constitution that gives Syrian, Iranian, and Egyptian Muslims the constitutional, shall not be infringed, right to immigrate to the US.

--Vance

James Kahn said...

"The question is not whether or not such a ban would be "fine" but whether the president would be acting within his authority if he were to issue an executive order for such a ban."

Yes. Yesterday I heard Madeline Notverybright get asked why she thought the EO was illegal. The best she could come up with was that she didn't like it ("it actually harms our national security"). Fine but irrelevant.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

complex layer of Constitutional due process and equal protection principles may arise with any application of that statute.

Are you saying that NON citizens in all parts of the world, who have no legal right to enter the country are allowed the protection of the Constitution of the United States?

Do we rule the whole world now? Is everyone world wide subject to our laws? Do our rights and protections as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States extend to the citizens of the United States or does everyone in the world get the benefit of our country's history and the sacrifices of our ancestors to secure those rights.




DanTheMan said...

>>People have Constitutional rights

Not foreign nationals with no previous connection to the US. And despite your assertion, the statute is clear black-letter law.

It doesn't say "but only if he has a good reason" or "subject to review by federal courts" or "only under certain circumstances".

It's not complex. The law is not on your side. The facts are not on your side. So just keep pounding the table.

AlbertAnonymous said...

I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's comments on the campaign trail about a Muslim Ban. Even if he said it while in the White House it doesn't matter.

At least that's the lesson I learned after President Obama kept saying that the ACA was not a Tax and then Roberts and friends ignored what he said and upheld the law as a "tax" anyway.

I'm sure this court will simply ignore what Trump said and uphold this too...

/sarc off

Unknown said...

Further, is it only Muslims that have this United States Constitutional right to immigrate to the US? What about Romanians? Russians?

Do other countries have this same constitutional thing? There's what, 11-12 million illegal immigrants in the US right now.

On June 6th, 1941 an estimated 4 to 5 million Germans (far less than what we in the US have!) started immigrating into Russia, as an organized body. Chuck, don't you agree that Russia was clearly in the wrong for trying to stop their immigration? Russia rounded them up, brutally murdering millions of them, and imprisoning the rest. There was no pretense of Russia giving these German immigrants due process: they actually fired on these immigrants with tanks and bombed them. Surely, Chuck, you stand with honest Germans like Hermann Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler that this action by the Russians was illegal and uncalled for.

After all, illegal immigrants who commit crimes are entitled to sanctuary--just ask your amnesty and Islamic and Mexican criminal loving friends, Chuck! Can you believe that the Russians didn't even open the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg to the immigrating Germans? Surely the Germans had a right to use that sparsely occupied land in Belorussia and Ukraine. The Russians even denied those hardworking German immigrants jobs in Stalingrad, choosing instead to burn the city and factories down! What racist folk, right Chuck?

--Vance

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
Wait, what? Chuck, please enumerate for us what United States constitutional rights a Muslim born and raised in Syria has. Especially cite the part of the Constitution that gives Syrian, Iranian, and Egyptian Muslims the constitutional, shall not be infringed, right to immigrate to the US.
--Vance

God damn it I have already set out a couple of categories for you.

If the "Muslim born and raised in Syria" has been processed as a refugee under a treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory, and has somehow been approved for immigration as a refugee, that Syrian might have some Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. If that same Syrian had some other immigration status (with or without a visa), again the Syrian might enjoy some other Constitutional rights. I am not saying that the Syrian will be guaranteed entry to the U.S. And I am also not saying that Syrians who have no other "status" as refugees, etc., would be able to avail themselves of Constitutional protections.

I am just so happy to have surfaced the latent anti-Muslim rage in TrumpLand. I didn't even have to take a position on Trump's executive order. (I still don't.) All that I had to do was to ask a single, simple law school-type question.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
Achilles; you are not getting it. I take no issue with that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. What you don't seem to understand is that a complex layer of Constitutional due process and equal protection principles may arise with any application of that statute.

The Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't get imposed in a vacuum. People have Constitutional rights, within statutory schemes.


I am not getting it? How fucking stupid are you?

Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

For fucks sake. Seriously read the fucking law.

Some people made a religion that allows them to kill people that don't agree with them and enslave women and kill all sorts of minorities in barbaric and ridiculous ways. Good for them. But that isn't what we want in our country and we are not required to commit cultural genocide because the oligarchs want their serfs back.

Keep trying to argue we have to let people who believe sharia law in the country. That is a total winner for you lefties.

SandiC said...

Run for the hills! Achilles sees Sharia Law in our future.The bad people will overcome our form of government and soon we will all be forced live under Sharia law. Such hysteria.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

I am just so happy to have surfaced the latent anti-Muslim rage in TrumpLand. I didn't even have to take a position on Trump's executive order. (I still don't.) All that I had to do was to ask a single, simple law school-type question.

Chuck thinks it is ok to hold a woman down and cut her clitoris off. Chuck also thinks it is ok to kill apostates, heretics who draw pictures of Mohamed, and Christians. Chuck thinks you are a bigot if you disagree with sharia law.

Chuck said...

AlbertAnonymous said...
I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's comments on the campaign trail about a Muslim Ban. Even if he said it while in the White House it doesn't matter...


No; what you are saying is that it shouldn't matter. But it does matter, because the plaintiff states have made it part of their claim, and because the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has inquired about it. I am certain that you don't like it; I understand. But what you can't deny is that it is being argued. That was my only point in that regard. I was right; I'm still right.

Achilles said...

SandiC said...
Run for the hills! Achilles sees Sharia Law in our future.The bad people will overcome our form of government and soon we will all be forced live under Sharia law. Such hysteria.

SandiC agrees with muslims that gay people should be thrown off roofs and we need more people who agree with her in our country.

DanTheMan said...

I don't see any "anti Muslim rage" here. What I do see is are a lot of questions about why we can't choose who gets to enter our country.

SandiC said...

"I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's comments on the campaign trail about a Muslim Ban. Even if he said it while in the White House it doesn't matter."

After Trump became president he asked Guilliani to figure out a way to make a "Muslim ban" legal. Words matter. Trump's intent was clear on the campaign trail and after he became president.

SandiC said...

"I don't see any "anti Muslim rage" here. What I do see is are a lot of questions about why we can't choose who gets to enter our country."

Something called the Constitution. Establishment Clause.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
...
Chuck thinks it is ok to hold a woman down and cut her clitoris off. Chuck also thinks it is ok to kill apostates, heretics who draw pictures of Mohamed, and Christians. Chuck thinks you are a bigot if you disagree with sharia law.

lol. I don't think a-n-y of those things. And I no one expects that you will even try to find a quote from me in which I have propounded any of those things.

What I do think, is that you are a very strange asshole. If it were my blog, you'd be taking a time out from the Comments pages now, sport.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
AlbertAnonymous said...
I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's comments on the campaign trail about a Muslim Ban. Even if he said it while in the White House it doesn't matter...

No; what you are saying is that it shouldn't matter. But it does matter, because the plaintiff states have made it part of their claim, and because the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has inquired about it. I am certain that you don't like it; I understand. But what you can't deny is that it is being argued. That was my only point in that regard. I was right; I'm still right.

Chuck wants it to matter. Chuck wants more sharia law. The oligarchs want an end to or borders and our country. 3 liberal justices on the 9th circuit will find a way to rule in favor of letting anyone who wants to come to our country to come in.

SandiC said...

Sounds like Achilles is losing his shit.

Unknown said...

Well, Chuck, I suppose it's a good thing that you've outed yourself as a total supporter of Islamic rights. Me, I'd be real hesitant to be on the same side as Osama Bin Laden and the people who view Rotherham, England, as the kind of society we should have. But you apparently are full bore pro-Islamic.

Good for you. I, however, will stand for America, its citizens, and the right to not be given the choice to worship Allah or die. I hope you get that choice, since you want it for the rest of us.

For the record, I'll choose death over worshipping that Baal clone called Allah. You can choose Allah, Chuck. You already have, after all.

After all, I don't see the advantage to the US to let in the people who love Rotherham. What benefit to America do they provide?

You, however, clearly think that Rotherham and Sharia law are fantastic and we need more of it. That's why you keep pushing for more and more Muslims. Why isn't a Muslim ban a good thing? Tell us that, Chuck. The people of Sweden, especially the women, sure wish that Sweden had banned Muslims from immigrating.

Of course, that's "racist" to not want to be raped by a Muslim, isn't it Chuck? How many rapes of American women by Muslim immigrants are we supposed to put up with, Chuck, so you feel good? How many gays thrown off of roofs? How many Christians burned at the stake will satisfy your need to import violent barbaric people who hate all of us?

Given the choice between letting Nazi Germans immigrate and Muslims, the clear choice would be letting the Nazi's in: at least they appreciated culture and were sane. You, however, want more Islam and more and more of it.

Yes, there are lots of nice, fine, upstanding Muslims. Salt of the earth folks.

There were plenty of nice, fine, upstanding Germans in the 1940's. Salt of the earth. Somehow, the thought of unlimited immigration from Germany in 1942 seems to be the absolute worst thing possible. Yet you want unlimited Muslim immigration, because "some of them are refugees!"

--Vance

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

lol. I don't think a-n-y of those things. And I no one expects that you will even try to find a quote from me in which I have propounded any of those things.

What I do think, is that you are a very strange asshole. If it were my blog, you'd be taking a time out from the Comments pages now, sport.


Poor Chuck. Your intentions and the net result of your actions are being called out. You can call it strange but you have been disingenuous from the start. Of course you want me silenced and your whining to Althouse will fall on deaf ears because she doesn't listen to that garbage. That's why most of us are here.

I on the other hand am very straightforward. I don't want any part of sharia law or the people who believe in it in the country my 2 daughters are growing up in. They will be full free citizens because we are not going to let democrats like you destroy our country.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck: The only reason that I conclude, with total assurance, that Trump's anti-Muslim statements matter, is because they became the subject of questions from the Ninth Circuit Judges. After the Plaintiff states also made them a subject of their pleadings. That's the fact. They are the subject of a court dispute now. Right or wrong.


But...wrong! I don't know the words but that seems totally irrelevant and subjective. Government by men and the laws are embroidery. It's as if a black man and a white man were in a dispute over a fenceline and the white man makes a motion saying "This guy can't have my stand of chestnut trees, he's a n-----!" and the court says "Is this true? Are you a n-----?" and the black man says, "Well, I am black..." and the court says "Motion granted!"

Or, to propose a less freighted controversy, "What's the weather like outside?" "57 degrees and sunny." "In early February? Let's go outside and play ball! Case dismissed!"

It's the opposite of justice!

Hagar said...

At that, is this brouhaha Trump's way of lighhting a fire under Congress?

Communism is every bit as much of a religion as Islam, and I bet the old restrictions on communist immigrants are still on the books and the questions on the forms being asked and answers required.

Unknown said...

I suppose I should detail Rotherham, England, for those who don't know. That's a city where the local Democrat equivalents and the local Imams of the mosques cut a deal: The Muslims could kidnap and rape and put into sex slavery on every girl in the entire city, particularly the 9 year olds through young teen girls, and in exchange the local Democrat politicians would look the other way and run interference and protect the Muslims. So far, over 2000 girls have been raped under this Democrat-Muslim alliance.

That's the kind of society the Muslims created in England. No Sharia legalization needed. Just Muslims and cowardly, pro-islamic leftists.

The excuse offered by the leftists when this whole sex slavery thing was discovered? "Oh, we couldn't be bigoted, now, could we!"

This is what happens when we let Muslims in. This is what Chuck and the rest want here in America.

--Vance

Achilles said...

SandiC said...
Sounds like Achilles is losing his shit.

SAD!

You can do better than that. Please tell everyone how we need more sharia law. Please tell us how right democrats are for wanting to import people so divergent from a liberal tolerant society. This is totally a winner for you guys I promise.

DanTheMan said...

>> But it does matter, because the plaintiff states have made it part of their claim

Ridiculous. If the plaintiff states had made claims about refugee ice cream preferences, that doesn't mean it matters.

It's irrelevant.

DanTheMan said...

Something called the Constitution. Establishment Clause.

Which does not apply to immigrants with no previous connection to the United States.

SandiC said...

Hello, everyone. Achilles believes Sharia law will replace our form of government. Be afraid, be very afraid... because there are more like Achilles out there, who seem to blur the dark fears of his imagination with reality.

Gahrie said...

"I don't see any "anti Muslim rage" here. What I do see is are a lot of questions about why we can't choose who gets to enter our country."

Something called the Constitution. Establishment Clause.


What does the Establishment Clause have to do with immigration? I suppose if we passed a law or wrote an executive order stating that only members of a certain religion could immigrate, you could argue that that was an establishment of religion...but how the hell is excluding non-citizens who belong to a certain religion establishing religion?

Brando said...

So from the comments here you either want to forcibly circumcise women for Allah or you think Muslims are inherently evil and must be eradicated from the face of the earth. This escalated quickly!

Achilles said...

DanTheMan said...
>> But it does matter, because the plaintiff states have made it part of their claim

Ridiculous. If the plaintiff states had made claims about refugee ice cream preferences, that doesn't mean it matters.

It's irrelevant.


You just aren't getting it Dan. It is super important to get large tech firms cheap laborers that they can send home if they complain.

ANYTHING is relevant to the case as long as it imports more cheap labor. Chuck and the democrats say so.

Brando said...

"Hello, everyone. Achilles believes Sharia law will replace our form of government. Be afraid, be very afraid... because there are more like Achilles out there, who seem to blur the dark fears of his imagination with reality."

We all know "Achilles" is Althouse's nom de plume for the comments section. She got the idea when she stubbed her ankle once. It's just a way to tickle her commenters.

Gahrie said...

Achilles believes Sharia law will replace our form of government.

If enough Muslims move here..it will. As it has everywhere else in the world when Muslims become dominant.

Most American Muslims will publically profess the belief that sharia should become the law of the land.

Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Achilles said...

SandiC said...
Hello, everyone. Achilles believes Sharia law will replace our form of government. Be afraid, be very afraid... because there are more like Achilles out there, who seem to blur the dark fears of his imagination with reality.

Keep trying to import more Muslims. They vote democrat dontya know. SandiC vouches for them too. Totally a winner for dems.

Will these judges face be on the front page of drudge just after the next terrorist attack?

Are you officially signed up fr the Trump 2020 campaign?

SandiC said...

"Which does not apply to immigrants with no previous connection to the United States."

Not necessarily.

A team of state attorneys general, including Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, as well as lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, have called President Trump’s executive order unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause by targeting a specific religious group. Based on your expertise, are they right?

Gahrie said...

I am just so happy to have surfaced the latent anti-Muslim rage in TrumpLand.

Why would anyone possibly feel rage at a religion, culture and people that have been waging a war of conquest against them for 1,400 years and commits deadly acts of terrorism against them on a regular basis?

Achilles said...

Brando said...

We all know "Achilles" is Althouse's nom de plume for the comments section. She got the idea when she stubbed her ankle once. It's just a way to tickle her commenters.

Flattered but no.

I have just deployed to several places where I saw what muslim culture is really like. They are not joking around about this stuff. They take sharia law seriously. Anyone who thinks differently is stupid or evil. Women are literally priced in goats in Afghanistan.

SandiC said...

"If enough Muslims move here..it will. As it has everywhere else in the world when Muslims become dominant.

Most American Muslims will publically profess the belief that sharia should become the law of the land.

Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state."

Fear mongering.

Unknown said...

Again, leftists seem to endorse situations like Rotherham and Sweden, where no, Sharia law is not law... yet.

But the abuse and suffering of women at the hands of Muslim refugees and immigrants is real, it's really large, and it's all done with open collaboration of the leftist Democrats. And if you think that women shouldn't be raped by Muslims, you are called bigoted, like that brave Swedish police officer today being destroyed by leftists because he pointed out all the Muslim rapes he dealt with this week.

How can Brando, Chuck, or SandiC defend any of this? How do they guarantee it won't happen here? It has happened EVERYWHERE Else Islamic people pour in.

How can any so-called "Feminist" possibly support massive Islamic migrations into the US? It's a guarantee that women will be destroyed by this. Just like everywhere else in the world where Muslims dominate.

--Vance

Achilles said...

SandiC said...

"A team of state attorneys general, including Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, as well as lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, have called President Trump’s executive order unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause by targeting a specific religious group. Based on your expertise, are they right?"

Keep pushing this stuff. Democrats will be lucky to break 38 seats in the senate after 2018.

Hagar said...

Lawyers will argue for anything as long as you pay them.

Gusty Winds said...

I am 100% in favor of importing as many people from the travel list as possible to the west side of Madison.

Achilles said...

SandiC said...

Fear mongering.

Please keep saying this.

Meanwhile vets who have been to muslim countries will tell people what really goes on there.

Please keep telling everyone how awesome sharia law is.

SandiC said...

Achilles wants to censure liberal commenters, lol.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
Again, leftists seem to endorse situations like Rotherham and Sweden, where no, Sharia law is not law... yet.


See what you did there? You had to write "seem" because you couldn't ever find an actual place where I did anything remotely like "endorse situations like Rotherham and Sweden..."

Pro tip: Try to stick with quoting me, directly. Don't let your imagination run wild with what "seems" to you. Keep me out of your weird, bigoted fantasies.

DanTheMan said...

>>ANYTHING is relevant to the case as long as it imports more cheap labor. Chuck and the democrats say so.

I've heard the H1-B visa conspiracy theories, and I don't generally agree with them. I think folks like Sandi are sincere in their desire to be non-discriminatory, but have landed in a curious place where the Constitution does not grant the United States the right to protect itself.

Brando said...

"I have just deployed to several places where I saw what muslim culture is really like. They are not joking around about this stuff. They take sharia law seriously. Anyone who thinks differently is stupid or evil. Women are literally priced in goats in Afghanistan."

I don't want that culture dominant in this country any more than you do. I just don't see that happening simply because we accept some people who are trying to escape that culture. Vet them, keep tabs on them, sure, but who's saying we shouldn't do that at all? If someone here has said so I missed it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"I don't see any "anti Muslim rage" here. What I do see is are a lot of questions about why we can't choose who gets to enter our country."

SandiC irrelevantly said: Something called the Constitution. Establishment Clause.

The action in question is the temporarily banning of people from some selected countries/geographic areas of the world.

What does this have to do with the establishment or free expression of religion IN the United States? Nothing.

We could chose to decide that veterinarians are a threat to the US, or knitters with their stabby needles are going to harm the country. Both ridiculous examples which, however, would be legal and which would never happen because it is stupid.

However, since many of the leaders of Islam throughout the world HAVE declared the US and its citizens to be the Great Satan and fair game for being targeted for death and that they believe that THEIR codification of laws (Sharia) trump the laws of our land....there could be a case to be made that Muslims present danger to the country. The fact that almost all terrorism acts against our country have been perpetrated by Muslims also shows that there is a clear and present danger in "that class" of immigrant/aliens. Therefore a ban ON Muslims until good vetting procedures are available would be a prudent thing.

Freedom to practice religion is already being violated in our country and no one seems to care much about that do they. Mormons are forbidden from exercising their religious tenets. Why are you not outraged over that? Hmmmmmm?

The problem of course with a "Muslim" ban is that how do you KNOW someone is Muslim or is not lying about being Muslim? You don't . So you do the next best thing. Which is what Trump has done. Restrict from those geographical areas.

SandiC said...

Have I been "warned" oh powerful Achilles? You Islamophobes really need to get a hold of yourselves. You sound hysterical. But it is interesting to hear some honesty at last, they are now admitting that Trump's EO is a Muslim Ban. Well, duh, we all knew it.

Unknown said...

If SandiC thinks this is all fear mongering, she should be easily able to point to the Muslim dominated, free society where women are not treated as chattel. Where women have the right to not be raped.

We await her list of free, happy, Islamic societies.

Just like the other great leftist ideology, Communism, where there are lots of "rights" but freedom is nonexistent, the left loves them some Islam. Poverty, misery, tyranny: Truly, what every leftist idea always, without fail, leads to. And of course the thieves at the top enjoying the spoils ripped from the souls in their grasp.

SandiC: You read up on Rotherham, and tell me why you want that here. And how you plan on importing millions of Muslims and not having Rotherham or Sweden. Because no other place has ever avoided it.

The equation has never failed: Lots of Muslims = Misery, death, and woe for women.

Never has it failed. Thus, those who support the one side of necessity support the other. It's as inevitable as "Lots of Nazi's = Lots of dead Jews." You support Nazism, you support Auschwitz. You support Islam and importing lots of Islamic followers, you support degrading, punishing, and destroying women.

--Vance

Gusty Winds said...

"I don't ever want to call a court biased so I won't call it biased, and we haven't had a decision yet, but courts seem to be so political. "But it would be so great for our system if they could read something and do what's right." - President Trump

Finally, somebody has the balls to tell it like it is. The Courts are political. They are biased and he pretty much said that too.

SandiC said...

I think we should allow the women and children refugees in and make the men stay back until they can get the super duper extra special vetting to make sure they aren't terrorists. How's that?

Brando said...

"How can Brando, Chuck, or SandiC defend any of this? How do they guarantee it won't happen here? It has happened EVERYWHERE Else Islamic people pour in."

I don't recall defending sharia law, or opening the floodgates. But completely shutting them out--including those trying to escape those hell holes, even people who are risking their lives to collaborate with us in war zones--I don't favor that either. And that wouldn't even keep us secure, considering a terrorist can infiltrate through other means. Or do you think they have some code of honor that keeps them from lying to us?

DanTheMan said...

>>A team of state attorneys general, including Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, as well as lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, have called President Trump’s executive order unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause by targeting a specific religious group. Based on your expertise, are they right?

So what? They can "call" it whatever they like. You do understand the difference between an assertion and a fact, yes?

Here's a fact: Trump's order does not ban immigration from the world's largest Muslim countries.

See the difference?

Jay Vogt said...

Was the War Refugee Board in WW2 in violation of the establishment clause? I certainly hope not. Not a perfect parallel as Jews at the time were a persecuted minority not a persecuting majority. Still . . . .

SandiC said...

Unknown,
I think Islam is an awful religion. I would discourage any female I know from ever getting in a relationship with a Muslim, for fear of the way they treat women. However, I won't punish women and children for being the victims of that culture and religion by not allowing them to enter this country based on their religion.

Jay Vogt said...

It was an executive order as well, I think

DanTheMan said...

>> super duper extra special vetting to make sure they aren't terrorists. How's that?

How do you vet someone from Libya? They have no functioning government, no formal record keeping, and no national databases of criminals or suspected terrorists?

What documents do you ask for?
How do you check their authenticity?
How do you determine their past criminal history?

Gahrie said...

a ban on Muslim entry into the United States would be perfectly legal.

Was the Chinese Exclusion Act illegal?

Did Jimmy Carter break the law when he banned the immigration of Iranians?

Unknown said...

Brando, I'm certainly not saying all Muslims are bad. That's ludicrous, they have what, over a billion adherents. Certainly the majority of them are decent folks.

I merely advocate treating them like the Soviet Union: We let in certain Soviets, spies etc that had earned our trust. We even let in a few fence jumpers; people who were fleeing for their lives from leftist oppression. I doubt however if we ever let in more than a 1000 a year, however.

But the massive immigration of Muslims the left wants? Look, I feel for the refugees. They are in a sucky spot.

But why not make them renounce Islam before they come? Islam and Communism are just two sides of the same coin, and we seldom let openly declared commies immigrate. If they don't want to renounce Islam, then go to Nigeria or Chad or maybe Saudi Arabia will let them in. Or perhaps set up a special area in Alaska or downtown San Francisco to put them in. Make the leftists enjoy the fruits of Islam.

Islam itself is the problem, and America has been blessed to not have many Muslims. Democrats are proposing to change that. Why should we? Why should we suddenly give ourselves a massive Islamic minority that history demonstrates is nothing but trouble?

I feel compassion for the burglar let out of jail, but I'm not stupid enough to give him a key to my house.

--Vance

Brando said...

Vance, I largely agree with your comment. I'm all for being careful who we let in (and this extends beyond Muslims but is particular to anyone we consider a risk of terrorist or violent or unlawful behavior). Any proposal to improve how we vet who we let in (and I'd extend that to other countries too, as many of these terrorists are likely to come through "friendly" countries, not just the ones on the list) is worth considering based on its effectiveness.

I'm not a fan of the EO in question--it looks more hamhanded and gauged for political benefit rather than improved security (compared to say increased vetting for anyone coming via third countries, coordination with foreign intelligence, tracking program for entrants).

SandiC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SandiC said...

"But the massive immigration of Muslims the left wants?"

Where is the evidence that the left wants "massive" immigration of Muslims? What numbers of refugees are "massive"? The Muslim ban also concerns itself with Muslims other than just refugees.

Unknown said...

SandiC: Can you name the proposed regulation limiting Muslims or really, anyone, from immigrating to the US that the left supports.

I can: the left is all about keeping persecuted Christians out of the US. Obama did not let any Christian refugees from Syria in. Only Muslims that couldn't be vetted.

The left's response? "Shut up bigot!" If we are to let in refugees, why does the left only support letting in Muslims and actively opposes letting in Christian refugees?

Couple that with the left's demand to allow unlimited immigration generally, it's clear: Massive Muslim immigration is high on the list of Democrat priorities, just as massive illegal Mexican/central/Southern American immigration is, because Muslims vote Democrat. And why wouldn't they vote Democrat? Democrats are all about persecuting Christians and allowing Palestinians to commit another Jewish holocaust, just like their Imam preaches. True, there's that whole gay rights thing, but ample evidence demonstrates that the Democrats support Islam over gay rights and would never stop a friendly Mosque from inciting and supporting slaughtering a few gays. See Pulse nightclub. So no big deal, really.

--Vance

DanTheMan said...

>>The Muslim ban

It does not ban Muslim immigration.

Again, that's a fact. Saying it's a "Muslim Ban" is an assertion.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Hagar said...
At that, is this brouhaha Trump's way of lighhting a fire under Congress?

Communism is every bit as much of a religion as Islam, and I bet the old restrictions on communist immigrants are still on the books and the questions on the forms being asked and answers required.

2/8/17, 12:45 PM



Yes, it's very simple. Do you support the violent overthrow of the government of the United States? Yes=you can't come in

What else is Islamofascism but the violent overthrow of every government not Islamofascist? Frankly, what else is Islam? Did they take over Spain with razor wit?

SandiC said...

All the angst over Islam taking over America! Yet, when Trump throws his own country under the bus by equating it with Russia and refusing to say a word against the known killer Putin, the Trumpists remain silent.

SandiC said...

"It does not ban Muslim immigration."

Not EVERY Muslim need be banned to consider it a Muslim ban. That was brought up yesterday in the hearing.

DanTheMan said...

>>Not EVERY Muslim need be banned to consider it a Muslim ban

You keep referring to what other people are claiming as if their claims were facts.
Without agreeing on a common set of facts, there can be no meeting of the minds.

So, let's start small.
Fact #1. It does not ban Muslims from entering from any of the 120 or so nations not on the list.

Please explain how an order that does not ban Muslims from immigration is a Muslim ban.
If you are going to take the position that if it bans X% of Muslims from immigrating, then it's up to you to define and defend X as a "ban".

X is likely to be very small, so you have a challenge to defending it as a "ban".


Matt said...

""Even a 'bad high school student' would rule in my favor.""

And this is proven every day in the comments section on most conservative websites...

Achilles said...

SandiC said...
I think we should allow the women and children refugees in and make the men stay back until they can get the super duper extra special vetting to make sure they aren't terrorists. How's that?

Allowing women and children to escape cultures dominated by Islam is a worthy goal.

But they have to denounce sharia law first.

It is really entertaining to me to watch a woman speak up for sharia law. You know why the Burka became popular in Afghanistan? When we saw the bruises on the women because the men beat them we got angry and took some of that anger out on the wife beaters. Violence against women in countries under sharia law is expected, not just tolerated.

Achilles said...

Brando said...

I don't recall defending sharia law, or opening the floodgates. But completely shutting them out--including those trying to escape those hell holes, even people who are risking their lives to collaborate with us in war zones--I don't favor that either. And that wouldn't even keep us secure, considering a terrorist can infiltrate through other means. Or do you think they have some code of honor that keeps them from lying to us?

You have to be fucking kidding me. It was Obama and the leftists who outed our interpreters and got them all killed. I knew some of those guys. It was Obama and his supporters that betrayed them.

At every turn the left is acting contrary to our interests and we still have people like you pretending they have good intentions.

Achilles said...

DanTheMan said...

How do you vet someone from Libya? They have no functioning government, no formal record keeping, and no national databases of criminals or suspected terrorists?

What documents do you ask for?
How do you check their authenticity?
How do you determine their past criminal history?


Poor Dan. You think the leftists are good people with good intentions who want good things for this country and can be reasoned with. They clearly do not.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think we should allow the women and children refugees in and make the men stay back until they can get the super duper extra special vetting to make sure they aren't terrorists. How's that?

Maybe SOME....but not all. We end up supporting these people with tax payer dollars for the rest of their lives. Why is it OUR responsibility to take in every indigent person in the world? Surely there are areas in their part of the world that would be able to take refugees. Places more familiar to them and more culturally compatible.

BTW: women and children are known to be terrorists, bomber and assassins. Just because they aren't men doesn't make them not a danger.

rhhardin said...

The Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch called President Trump’s attack on federal judges “demoralizing” and “disheartening” - NYT email

But he's in the court system. For the rest of us it's deserved. A call to do better.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

First progressive liberals excised "our Posterity" from the Constitution, and the sentence was carried out in the privacy of abortion chambers. Then they came for "the People" with a homage to [class] diversity, and the judges ruled the People were out of order. As if the cover-up of the trail of tears from social justice adventures run amuck from Tripoli to Damascus to Kiev was not bad enough, then they add insult to injury and force a global refugee crisis through not premature evacuation but voting present.

Gretchen said...

I think we should take all the people protesting the Muslim ban and put them in any majority Muslim country for a few weeks with a body cam.

Achilles said...

Blogger Gretchen said...
"I think we should take all the people protesting the Muslim ban and put them in any majority Muslim country for a few weeks with a body cam."

They should wear a pussy hat too.

Brando said...

"You have to be fucking kidding me. It was Obama and the leftists who outed our interpreters and got them all killed. I knew some of those guys. It was Obama and his supporters that betrayed them."

Who's defending Obama here? And since when has Obama doing something awful that sets back our national security meant that we should applaud if Trump also does something awful that sets back our national security? Can you not see that someone can disown both of those?