What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Maher was great last night ripping the left for that
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that...and he is absolutely right.

Thanks for the link aparch!

And if CA refuses to pay Federal Taxes the government might be forced to shut down...and I mean really shut down not the lame *** way Ted Cruz shut them down.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brenthoven said:
I don't know why he left out those countries. I'm saying he wants Muslims out, and as an idiot, he picked out some countries on a map. However, under the law's terms that were posted earlier, it appears to be legal if the lawyers/pols state it in a religious way, rather than an "origin country" (etc) way. Yet, I hear no cry of BS on that front. All I hear is "racist" or "can't do that b/c of country!" Those people are correct. However, if the admin frames it religiously......guess what?
Click to expand...

That wont hold up to strict scrutiny under the rules of the 1965 law. The second he banned Muslims from only certain countries he made it about country over religion. Unless he plans to let in the other religions from those countries then it isnt the religion that is keeping them out it is their country of origin.

Put it this way...if you are right then a Muslim need only say they are actually Christian or Khurdish and he will let them in even if they are from Iraq. Wanna bet that doesnt happen? Also, if a Saudi Muslim is allowed in but an Iraqi Muslim is not then it isnt about religion it is about the country.

tl;dr: it is BS of the highest order and while I get what you are saying, whatever legal expert is espousing those theories needs to look at it further. The ACLU is going to continue winning these cases because Trump was too stupid to frame it the way he should have. (the way you are saying is correct in that regard he just didnt do it that way)
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brenthoven said:
This is sloppy for a quote, but this snippet from Slap's post:

Trump points to a 1952 law allowing the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens”, says Bier, but this ignores restrictions placed by Congress in 1965, stating no person could 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”.

I see NOWHERE does it dictate religion. And that's the big issue. Trump, IMO, is all for banning people of this religion, but he's too stupid to know how to do it properly (and again, I don't agree with him whatsoever).
Click to expand...

Except again...it isnt about religion. If it was he would have banned ALL MUSLIMS FROM ALL COUNTRIES. He picked specific countries, so as such the 1965 law is in play. He specified only a few countries where Muslims were banned from...the countries are the identifier not the religion.

As for whether all of this is racist...well that depends if you can consider hating a people from a country racism. I cant think of a better word for it (since they are different ethnicities depending on country whether it is Persian, Arabian...etc) so I think it does actually apply.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Technically anything is legal if you have the power to do it by that's beside the point.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brent you're wrong that ban is unquestionably legal - it is up for debate for reasons Handy noted above. We will find out in due time.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Frightened by Donald Trump? You don’t know the half of it

Yes, Donald Trump’s politics are incoherent. But those who surround him know just what they want, and his lack of clarity enhances their power. To understand what is coming, we need to understand who they are. I know all too well, because I have spent the past 15 years fighting them.

Over this time, I have watched as tobacco, coal, oil, chemicals and biotech companies have poured billions of dollars into an international misinformation machine composed of thinktanks, bloggers and fake citizens’ groups. Its purpose is to portray the interests of billionaires as the interests of the common people, to wage war against trade unions and beat down attempts to regulate business and tax the very rich. Now the people who helped run this machine are shaping the government.
Click to expand...

Among those I clashed with was Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI calls itself a thinktank, but looks to me like a corporate lobbying group. It is not transparent about its funding, but we now know it has received $2m from ExxonMobil, more than $4m from a group called the Donors Trust (which represents various corporations and billionaires), $800,000 from groups set up by the tycoons Charles and David Koch, and substantial sums from coal, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies.

For years, Ebell and the CEI have attacked efforts to limit climate change, through lobbying, lawsuits and campaigns. An advertisement released by the institute had the punchline “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution. We call it life.”

It has sought to eliminate funding for environmental education, lobbied against the Endangered Species Act, harried climate scientists and campaigned in favour of mountaintop removal by coal companies. In 2004, Ebell sent a memo to one of George W Bush’s staffers calling for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to be sacked. Where is Ebell now? Oh – leading Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Click to expand...

Charles and David Koch – who for years have funded extreme pro-corporate politics – might not have been enthusiasts for Trump’s candidacy, but their people were all over his campaign. Until June, Trump’s campaign manager was Corey Lewandowski, who like other members of Trump’s team came from a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP).

This purports to be a grassroots campaign, but it was founded and funded by the Koch brothers. It set up the first Tea Party Facebook page and organised the first Tea Party events. With a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, AFP has campaigned ferociously on issues that coincide with the Koch brothers’ commercial interests in oil, gas, minerals, timber and chemicals.

In Michigan, it helped force through the “right to work bill”, in pursuit of what AFP’s local director called “taking the unions out at the knees”. It has campaigned nationwide against action on climate change. It has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into unseating the politicians who won’t do its bidding and replacing them with those who will.
Click to expand...

I could fill this newspaper with the names of Trump staffers who have emerged from such groups: people such as Doug Domenech, from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, funded among others by the Koch brothers, Exxon and the Donors Trust; Barry Bennett, whose Alliance for America’s Future (now called One Nation) refused to disclose its donors when challenged; and Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, funded by Exxon and others. This is to say nothing of Trump’s own crashing conflicts of interest. Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of the lobbyists and corporate stooges working in Washington. But it looks as if the only swamps he’ll drain will be real ones, as his team launches its war on the natural world.
Click to expand...

Don’t imagine that other parts of the world are immune. Corporate-funded thinktanks and fake grassroots groups are now everywhere. The fake news we should be worried about is not stories invented by Macedonian teenagers about Hillary Clinton selling arms to Islamic State, but the constant feed of confected scares about unions, tax and regulation drummed up by groups that won’t reveal their interests.

The less transparent they are, the more airtime they receive. The organisation Transparify runs an annual survey of thinktanks. This year’s survey reveals that in the UK only four thinktanks – the Adam Smith Institute, Centre for Policy Studies, Institute of Economic Affairs and Policy Exchange – “still consider it acceptable to take money from hidden hands behind closed doors”. And these are the ones that are all over the media.

When the Institute of Economic Affairs, as it so often does, appears on the BBC to argue against regulating tobacco, shouldn’t we be told that it has been funded by tobacco companies since 1963? There’s a similar pattern in the US: the most vocal groups tend to be the most opaque.
Click to expand...

As usual, the left and centre (myself included) are beating ourselves up about where we went wrong. There are plenty of answers, but one of them is that we have simply been outspent. Not by a little, but by orders of magnitude. A few billion dollars spent on persuasion buys you all the politics you want. Genuine campaigners, working in their free time, simply cannot match a professional network staffed by thousands of well-paid, unscrupulous people.

You cannot confront a power until you know what it is. Our first task in this struggle is to understand what we face. Only then can we work out what to do.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Shocker. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

President Trump’s most recent executive order effectively bans citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days — but some Muslim countries were spared from the order's blacklist, even though they have deep-seated ties to terrorism.

Conspicuously, Trump doesn't hold any business interests in any of the countries on the list, but holds major stakes in several of those excluded from it, records show.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

unofan - care to comment?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiallo_v._bell

...The Court stressed that Congress, not the courts, has the sole power to decide who to admit and exclude for immigration purposes, noting, “[t]his Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.” While finding it unnecessary for Congress to meet any constitutional standard of review, Justice Powell still determined that Congress’ preclusion of illegitimate children and their father’s could meet rational basis review because the Government had a legitimate interest in protecting against immigration fraud, while observing that in the context of immigration, “‘Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.’”
Click to expand...

Congress, rather than an Executive Order, could restrict immigration from those lands contained in the EO?
 
Brenthoven said:
Have you read what I wrote? The legal teams will tweak the language, IF they really want it to pass.The law, per Slap Shots (?) post did NOT cover religion. It covered everything else, and there is where the legalese comes in.....
Click to expand...

Probably because religion is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so there's no need to add a statutory provision covering religion.
 
joecct said:
unofan - care to comment?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiallo_v._bell



Congress, rather than an Executive Order, could restrict immigration from those lands contained in the EO?
Click to expand...

Again, executive orders fill in the gaps left by Congress.

The pecking order is:
Constitution
Statutory law
Executive actions

Laws cannot violate the Constitution, and executive actions cannot contradict the Constitution or statutory law. But if the law says "people wearing red are banned," the President can define what constitutes red if Congress didn't. Maybe it includes maroon, or pink, or orange, or anything that includes a bit of red in the digital color scale.

The judiciary gives wide berths on immigration and national security issues, but if this doesn't count as enacting a law respecting religion (as brent argues) or violating the national origin provision of the 1965 law, then the court is simply being a rubber stamp at this point.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brent, I'm not sure what argument you're making but doesn't the constitution prohibit using religion as the basis? Hence trying to figure out which countries a) are majority Muslim and b) don't have a Trump resort or Saud family rule? Also, there's no way he can tweak this to make it okay to keep out vetted armed forces interpreters, professors & researchers, etc that have been affected.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

geezer said:
Brent, I'm not sure what argument you're making but doesn't the constitution prohibit using religion as the basis? Hence trying to figure out which countries a) are majority Muslim and b) don't have a Trump resort or Saud family rule? Also, there's no way he can tweak this to make it okay to keep out vetted armed forces interpreters, professors & researchers, etc that have been affected.
Click to expand...

They're not in the country yet. The Constitution only applies to those already in the country.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

geezer said:
Brent, I'm not sure what argument you're making but doesn't the constitution prohibit using religion as the basis? Hence trying to figure out which countries a) are majority Muslim and b) don't have a Trump resort or Saud family rule? Also, there's no way he can tweak this to make it okay to keep out vetted armed forces interpreters, professors & researchers, etc that have been affected.
Click to expand...

They were already doing a good job before this keeping out many armed forces interpreters. Lots of loopholes and just generally being slow/not caring has meant far less interpreters have been given visas than were allotted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top