Travel ban in effect; Supreme Court to decide

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 02:59 PM)Griever Wrote: so what muslim terrorist attacks were carried out on us soil since the ban was first introduced?

is it a ban or is not a ban? trump says it is and everyone else at the WH says its not

My statement was my opinion on the matter. I would ban Muslims for 10 years until they calmed themselves down. They need a reformation and if the west cut them off it would force them to adjust to the west to be part of civil society.

I would also put the brakes on Central America as well as we sorted out the current illegals. It's a tough sell to mass deport..... ( although I would support that as well)..... so it would be easier to halt incoming for 10 years as we focus on the illegals. None should ever be citizens but they should get an extended stay visa if they pay up and qualify.

I would implement the Australia style point system with similar rules and ban anyone who tries to come across the border illegally . Much like they do with the boats.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2017, 03:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: My statement was my opinion on the matter.  I would ban Muslims for 10 years until they calmed themselves down.   They need a reformation and if the west cut them off it would force them to adjust to the west to be part of civil society.  

I would also put the brakes on Central America as well as we sorted out the current illegals.   It's a tough sell to mass deport..... ( although I would support that as well).....  so it would be easier to halt incoming for 10 years as we focus on the illegals.   None should ever be citizens but they should get an extended stay visa if they pay up and qualify.  

I would implement the Australia style point system with similar rules and ban anyone who tries to come across the border illegally .  Much like they do with the boats.

But what is the basis for that opinion?  

Grieve has made an excellent, factual point about the non-effect of the ban over the last 90 days.  You countered with your "opinion".

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 02:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why?  Griever pointed out the original ban would have expired by now and nothing happened.  "Extra New Super Extreme Vetting"™ won't make any difference.


Actually we have a man problem.  White, black, Christian, Muslim...men are the problem for the most part.

1. The issue is these countries have no way to allow us to research these people. Plus the only actual refugees based on the Geneva convention would be the christians. Otherwise they are all just displaced persons or economic migrants. Neither of which qualifies for refugee status.

2. No we don't.... we have a lack of actual men problem.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 03:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: But what is the basis for that opinion?  

Grieve has made an excellent, factual point about the non-effect of the ban over the last 90 days.  You countered with your "opinion".

Basis for my opinion on immigration policy?

17+ million illegals mostly from Central America. Unless we are going to mass deport we can't afford for more to flow across until we finally sort out the illegals that have been coming in mass since 1965. Really we need 20 years but 10 is a good start.

And as for the Muslim ban..... they are terrorizing the western world and you don't reward bad behavior. The Muslim world needs to work on itself before they are ready to join the civilized world. But once again it's really not a ban since I put a 10 year clock on the ban.

If we have any hope to get control of our borders and our population we need to pump the brakes on incoming. You don't start fixing the motor until you plug the hole in your boat.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2017, 03:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Basis for my opinion on immigration policy?  

17+ million illegals mostly from Central America.   Unless we are going to mass deport we can't afford for more to flow across until we finally sort out the illegals that have been coming in mass since 1965.    Really we need 20 years but 10 is a good start.    

And as for the Muslim ban.....   they are terrorizing the western world and you don't reward bad behavior.  The Muslim world needs to work on itself before they are ready to join the civilized world.   But once again it's really not a ban since I put a 10 year clock on the ban.  

If we have any hope to get control of our borders and our population we need to pump the brakes on incoming.    You don't start fixing the motor until you plug the hole in your boat.

So you completely disregard the 90 days the ban was to be in effect that nothing happened based on nothing more than your own fears.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2017, 03:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you completely disregard the 90 days the ban was to be in effect that nothing happened based on nothing more than your own fears.

What about the illegal who beat a muslim girl to death with a bat?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 03:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you completely disregard the 90 days the ban was to be in effect that nothing happened based on nothing more than your own fears.

You asked me about my opinion on immigration policy. That has nothing to do with 90 day ban. If you would like my opinion on this I would be happy to provide.

90 day ban isn't about those 90 days. It's about getting those countries to update and upgrade their systems to properly research their people.

Trumps refugee ban in line with the fact that most do jot fit the Geneva convention definition of refugees. Outside of the christians.

So in my opinion it needs to be a rolling ban until these countries step up.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2017, 03:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What about the illegal who beat a muslim girl to death with a bat?

Was his country covered under the travel ban?

Next....

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 03:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What about the illegal who beat a muslim girl to death with a bat?

They disregard Brown on brown crime. Or illegal on citizen crime.

They need to find the white guy.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2017, 03:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You asked me about my opinion on immigration policy.  That has nothing to do with 90 day ban.   If you would like my opinion on this I would be happy to provide.  

90 day ban isn't about those 90 days.    It's about getting those countries to update and upgrade their systems to properly research their people.  

Trumps refugee ban in line with the fact that most do jot fit the Geneva convention definition of refugees.   Outside of the christians.  

So in my opinion it needs to be a rolling ban until these countries step up.

But in the last 90 days that did not happen and nothing else happened either.  Get it?

No...you're too afraid to see it.  

But I have no doubt that Trump's 90 ban would have rolled on forever because he never would have come up with "Extra New Super Extreme Vetting" Just like he never came up with a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days or a healthcare plan that lowered premiums, saved money, covered everyone and didn't touch medicaid.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: But in the last 90 days that did not happen and nothing else happened either.  Get it?

No...you're too afraid to see it.  

But I have no doubt that Trump's 90 ban would have rolled on forever because he never would have come up with "Extra New Super Extreme Vetting" Just like he never came up with a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days or a healthcare plan that lowered premiums, saved money, covered everyone and didn't touch medicaid.

It needs to keep rolling. It just allowed us to look at it every 90 days to give these countries a chance to make the necessary changes. Not sure why you are caught up on 90 days. Iraq made steps to get off that list by accepting the deportees. This rolling 90 day ban is a tool to ensure cooperation From these countries.

What on earth do you think I am afraid?

[GMDino]

(06-26-2017, 03:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It needs to keep rolling.   It just allowed us to look at it every 90 days to give these countries a chance to make the necessary changes.   Not sure why you are caught up on 90 days.   Iraq made steps to get off that list by accepting the deportees.    This rolling 90 day ban is a tool to ensure cooperation From these countries.

What on earth do you think I am afraid?

Because you have no reason other than "something *might* happen" when nothing did. 

Because we will somehow come up with a "Extra New Super Extreme Vetting" to keep "them" out.  

[Griever]

(06-26-2017, 03:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It needs to keep rolling.   It just allowed us to look at it every 90 days to give these countries a chance to make the necessary changes.   Not sure why you are caught up on 90 days.   Iraq made steps to get off that list by accepting the deportees.    This rolling 90 day ban is a tool to ensure cooperation From these countries.

What on earth do you think I am afraid?

brown people

and fred 

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2017, 03:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You asked me about my opinion on immigration policy. That has nothing to do with 90 day ban. If you would like my opinion on this I would be happy to provide.

90 day ban isn't about those 90 days. It's about getting those countries to update and upgrade their systems to properly research their people.

Trumps refugee ban in line with the fact that most do jot fit the Geneva convention definition of refugees. Outside of the christians.

So in my opinion it needs to be a rolling ban until these countries step up.

It wasn't about the other countries. The justification for the ban was to give the administration time to evaluate their own system. That was the reasoning from the administration itself.

And do you have anything to back up your claim about refugees?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-26-2017, 03:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wasn't about the other countries. The justification for the ban was to give the administration time to evaluate their own system. That was the reasoning from the administration itself.

And do you have anything to back up your claim about refugees?

Back up what? That they don't meet the requirements as defined in the Geneva convention?

Quote: "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."[

[StLucieBengal]

So since it was 9-0 in favor maybe it's time we look at some of these lower court judges and look to impeach these people who clearly jump the shark on the constitution. It's been a joke.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2017, 04:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So since it was 9-0 in favor maybe it's time we look at some of these lower court judges and look to impeach these people who clearly jump the shark on the constitution.   It's been a joke.

I don't think grounds for impeachment are specified for jurists, but I don't think this would qualify in most people's book, but I get your point.

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-26-2017, 03:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because you have no reason other than "something *might* happen" when nothing did. 

Because we will somehow come up with a "Extra New Super Extreme Vetting" to keep "them" out.  

I guess this might actually be a good debate question. Do we have to wait for an attack to happen before we decide to do something like the travel ban?

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2017, 04:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So since it was 9-0 in favor maybe it's time we look at some of these lower court judges and look to impeach these people who clearly jump the shark on the constitution.   It's been a joke.

Given that the Supreme Court only reviews 0.1% of all cases heard by the Federal Court of Appeals, and far lower for just Federal District Courts, you're suggesting that we grade judges on the 1 out of 1000 of their cases that a clerk decides to forward to one of the Justices for consideration. 

Even then, an average of 70% of the cases are overturned, likely because those cases that actually get heard are controversial or partisan in nature. 

So are we going to scrutinize only those significantly above the average, maybe 90%, using a small sampling? Are we also going to suggest that having the scope of your injunction limited somehow amounts to "jumping the shark"?

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2017, 04:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think grounds for impeachment are specified for jurists, but I don't think this would qualify in most people's book, but I get your point.

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article II Section IV covers Judges too. It also states in Article III that they will hold office "during good behavior".