@bob, you say "We need more native Arabic speakers that can counter IS
propaganda, new loyal American citizens, on our side. Where will we get these
people if immigrants are cut off?" How many thousands or
millions of muslims in America, who have been here for decades are loyal
Americans? How many have 100% assimilated. How many get out and protest ISIS,
get on tv and denounce jihad against the infidel Americans? My guess would be
less than 1/2%. The refugees/immigrants from the middle east have
found capitalism is better than the way they lived in their oppressed countries
and dessert which they do not want to return to, but wholey believe their
idiologies/religions are superior to the Americans. You can wish and
hope all you want that the muslims will change, but truth being they are very
devout to their beliefs, unlike Americans who have decided secularisim is the
I sleep better knowing Trump has surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants.
It makes it much harder for him to advance his disgusting agenda.
In late 2015, the (Democratic) Governor of Hawaii said that Hawaii has taken in
zero refugees from Syria in the past 10 years. He also said he expects zero
Syrians to be resettled in Hawaii going forward. Perhaps Judge
Watson can convince the hard-hearted Governor Ige to take the refugees (most of
them from Iran) that are currently held by Australia on Manus Island. Remember that President Obama agreed to take these refugees since the Aussies
don't want them. This was, of course, the subject of the "rude"
phone call Trump had with the Australian PM, when the Australian PM surprised
Trump with the news of the deal Obama negotiated shortly before leaving office.
Of course, the Obama people conveniently forgot to tell the Trump people about
Politicians justify decisions, by saying:* we're doing this for
the poor* we're doing this for the children* we want safe
bridges and roadsWill these leaders take responsibility for their
actions on refugees.
@Harrison...another section of the law clearly bans discrimination
against certain classes. Section 202(a)(1)(A) of the INA states that
except in cases specified by Congress in section 101(a)(27):
person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in
the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex,
nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.While section 212
grants the president a general power to exclude certain immigrants, section 202
limits this power. Note that this section does not prevent discrimination based
on religious affiliation, political belief, or ideology, but Trump’s new
policy would run afoul of at least one if not all three of those last three
restrictions—nationality, place of birth, or place of
residence—depending on how it was applied. That's why
they're judges, they understand the"Whole" law and how it is, or is
not, constitutional, but if you want drop outs on the radio or in alt right news
to inform you than you will continue to be misled.
@harrisonCongress abdicating thier authority to the president with regards
to immigration does not mean the President has the authority to violate the
Constitution. Luckily we still have an independent judiciary that understands
that much unchecked authority vested in one person would not only
unconstitutional but very dangerious.
Tolstoy: "When laws or executive orders may present a violation of the
constitution then it is the duty of the court tohear [sic] such cases and render
a ruling to resolve the conflict."Agreed. If only they would
follow the constitution and the law. They have completely abandoned both. The constitution does not afford any protections to foreign nationals in
other countries. And Congress has vested ALL authority over immigration
with the executive branch. From the Immigration and Nationality Act section
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."What this means is
that Donald Trump could in fact legally ban all Muslims who are not US citizens
from entering the United States. You could call it mean or bigoted or
irrational. But it would be LEGAL.
I find it interesting that the same conservatives that clammer about states
right suddenly get angry when states assert thier rights. With regards to this
issue the states have been able to prove in several courts of law that Trumps
orders causes them a harm and Trumps lawyers have. failed time and again to
provide proof that the ban serves a vital national security interest that would
justify such a harm. This is where conservatives really seem to struggle.
They tend to be effective at public rheotoric but struggle to provide actual
evidance in a court of law to back up thier policy positions. Instead of blaming
judges maybe they should insure thier arguments are supported by the facts.
@Harrison BergeronWhen laws or executive orders may present a
violation of the constitution then it is the duty of the court tohear such cases
and render a ruling to resolve the conflict. The administrations inability the
make its case that the ban serves a vital national security interest rather then
being based upon on animus against a single religion which is a violation of the
constitution is not the judge fault. Perhaps if Trump had bothered to understand
the legal ramifications of his numerious comments during the election he would
have chosen his words more carefully.
I know how liberals will react to this. But everyone else should be really
concerned about how overtly political so much of the judiciary has become. They
are not even bringing up relevant case law in these situations. They are simply
taking over the foreign policy of the United States - which by all rational
argument is vested to the executive branch of government. If we do
nothing, our republic will become an oligarchy of judges.
@BPositiveif you took the time to understand the state's
arguments rather then simply make disparaging remarks you would know that the
reason they filed this case is because banning immigrants cause them problem so
they were focusing own their own problems.
@RRB - SLC, UT"Significant and unrebutted evidence of playing
politics. The Democrats could care less when Obama banned Iraq and
Carter banned Iran, but we know that. Right now with no majority in the Supreme
Court it would be impossible to get it overturned. "Ok, I will
give a rebuttal. In both instances those were single countries, and in both
instances neither Carter nor Obama claimed they would have a total ban on all
Muslims before doing it.Neither of those bans had anything to do
with people being Muslim. For Iran, they had just attacked our embassy and
held our State department staff hostage. I could see him banning
travel from Lybia. All of this is clouded by the fact that Trump could not
keep his big mouth in check on the campaign trail. Now it is coming back to
Hey Rikitikitavi -RE: "Hope it's not your child who gets
kidnapped and hauled off into slavery or your wife who gets hit by a repeat
drunk offender."Well, if we can keep Trump supporters tied down,
that probably won't happen.Hey Bpositive -RE:
"Graduating from Punahou does not mean that Hawaii has to agree with
everything President Obama did. He was a massive failure on virtually every
front. "Ha! It's easy to tell you're a Republican and
an avid Trump supporter.. . . You're projecting again.
Bombs and bans have never proven effective. Ghandi won with peace and kindness.
trump will lose with violence.
Banning muslims will not make us safer. There is no such thing as total safety,
Trump snowflakes. The rest of us will help you get over your fear of muslims
and "others".Xenophobia will not save you. Adherence to the
principles in our Constitution will make us prosperous, shredding the
Constitution by banning a religious group will make us the target of the world.
This country already had an excellent vetting process that is reasonable
The Judge and his State will be attacked on his back-round in mean Trump cult
Dear Hawaii residents,Graduating from Punahou does not mean that
Hawaii has to agree with everything President Obama did. He was a massive
failure on virtually every front. Hawaii is just another poorly run democratic
state. Clean up your homeless situation, cut the grass at your high schools,
clean up the Alawai canal and focus on your own problems.
Justice prevails, too bad that Trump said all those things during the campaign,
and now his own words are being used against him. There is some justice in this
world.You Trump fans can whine all you want about politics and bad
judges but, you are wrong, your guy and his mouthpieces made comments about a
Muslim Ban over and over, then made a thinly veiled attempt and renaming it, and
smarter minds prevailed.Go ahead and fantasize about getting
attacked so you can rationalize you fear, but reality is, this Ban did nothing
to protect Americans.
President Trump worked the crowd at his rally in Nashville in his usual angry
fashion.America will not defeat jihadists by whipping up xenophobia
in our population, but by infiltrating and influencing their population. We
need more native Arabic speakers that can counter IS propaganda, new loyal
American citizens, on our side. Where will we get these people if immigrants
are cut off? American freedom and opportunity have been turning
immigrants into valuable citizens for hundreds of years. Let's keep it
Just waiting for un-vetted fake refugees who are radicalized, coming to American
with the intent to do harm to Americans. Hope it's not your child who gets
kidnapped and hauled off into slavery or your wife who gets hit by a repeat
Significant and unrebutted evidence of playing politics. The
Democrats could care less when Obama banned Iraq and Carter banned Iran, but we
know that. Right now with no majority in the Supreme Court it would be
impossible to get it overturned. It could lead to a greater
resentment against all refugees, and that would be wrong. It looks like France
will follow Britain, this will just make it worse.