Travel ban in effect; Supreme Court to decide

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-28-2017, 09:33 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Putting them in the west is setting them up for failure. They should have never left their continent.

That's funny considering just a few days ago you claimed you didn't care if we destroyed the earth so we could become intergalactic immigrants.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2017, 01:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Another winner of the "Golden Ticket" to the US.

Not discounting the human toll, but thinking of all those ancient buildings and all the history getting blown up is another loss. I've always wanted to see places like Aleppo or Acre.

[Dill]

(06-26-2017, 01:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There were a couple from this board who were upset that I called obama a beta that they felt the need to make the case against Jesus.  

The petty nonsense is alive.

Insisting Jesus was an "Alpha" was not petty nonsense, of course.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2017, 02:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not discounting the human toll, but thinking of all those ancient buildings and all the history getting blown up is another loss.  I've always wanted to see places like Aleppo or Acre.

One our greatest losses as humanity is the willingness of some to destroy such things out of psite, hatred and desire to cover up the past.

[Dill]

(06-28-2017, 12:50 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Syrians who flee because of bombing are not refugees.  They are displaced.    They aren't being slaughtered for their religion or race.   They are just trying to use the situation as their golden ticket to the west.   We do not need or want them.

Economic migrants are all these Africans and others.   Depends on where in Syria these people come from.

That's Muslims for you. When their families are killed they use that as an excuse to come to the US or Britain instead of remaining in the rubble of their destroyed homes as any American would in their place.

Fortunately we now have an al Alpha leader who can see through the ruse. Keep your tired poor huddled masses yearning for freedom.

We are a Christian nation. Let the little children come unto some else.

[Dill]

(06-28-2017, 09:36 AM)GMDino Wrote:

I think Lucie would agree that Alpha J urged his followers to get the message out.

His point was that Jesus would not bring refugees to safety in other countries, if their own were dangerous.

[Griever]

if only we had a travel ban in place, the bowling green massacre would have never happened, or any of the other countless terrorist attacks on american soil that happened since trump took office

[GMDino]

(06-28-2017, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: I think Lucie would agree that Alpha J urged his followers to get the message out.

His point was that Jesus would not bring refugees to safety in other countries, if their own were dangerous.

Oh.  Of course.  

[GMDino]

So there is news about the travel ban:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/trump-rejected-by-u-s-supreme-court-on-reach-of-travel-ban

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Donald Trump on his embattled travel ban Wednesday, rejecting his bid to bar entry by some people with family members already in the country.


The three-sentence order by the justices -- who last month let the president start restricting entry by people from six mostly Muslim countries -- means the government must accept people with grandparents, cousins and other relatives in the U.S.

The order gave Trump a partial win on a separate issue, temporarily blocking a lower court ruling that would have opened the way for potentially thousands of refugees to enter the country in the coming months. That portion of the Supreme Court order applies while the administration appeals on that issue to a federal appellate court in San Francisco.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from part of Wednesday’s order, saying they would have let Trump also refuse entry to grandparents and other relatives while the case is on appeal.

The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on the travel ban when the justices return in October from their three-month recess. The latest scuffle centered on the rules that will apply in the interim.

The justices on June 26 let the government enforce a limited travel ban, saying the U.S. had to admit at least some close relatives though the court didn’t list all the relationships that qualified. The Trump administration then agreed to let people enter if they had a parent, spouse, fiance, child, sibling, son- or daughter-in-law, or a parent-in-law in the country.
Grandparents, Cousins

But the government contended it could still exclude people whose closest relatives in the U.S. are grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, or siblings-in-law.

A federal trial judge in Hawaii said the administration’s standard was too restrictive and couldn’t be squared with the Supreme Court decision. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said the government couldn’t exclude refugees once a resettlement agency had promised that it would provide basic services for them.

Trump asked the Supreme Court to clarify its June 26 decision, contending that Watson disobeyed it. The high court denied that request in Wednesday’s order, though it partially granted one of the administration’s backup suggestions by blocking the portion of Watson’s ruling that addressed refugees.

Trump’s March 6 executive order said the 90-day travel ban and 120-day refugee ban would give officials time to assess U.S. vetting procedures and would address an “unacceptably high” risk that terrorists could slip into the country. Lower courts had blocked the ban, saying Trump overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally targeted Muslims.

[*michaelsean*]

Hasn't the ban expired? When does this become moot?

[GMDino]

Also while trying to find out about a story posted on FB about something sort of related I came across this post from 2016.

I figured it was worth adding to this thread about Syrian immigration rather than a new thread.

https://bearingdrift.com/2015/11/18/myths-vs-facts-in-the-syrian-refugee-issue/


It's a long read so I did cut out a couple paragraphs but the majority is here.

Quote:

Myths vs. Facts in the Syrian Refugee issue   

The recent attacks in Paris have ignited a firestorm of controversy about refugees in the United States.  Based on information that has been released in this still on-going investigation, at least one of the Paris bombers was fingerprinted in Greece and may have posed as a refugee.  This has led to an outcry here in America.  Unfortunately, what has been feeding into this outcry is a massive amount of misreporting on the issue of refugees, both in the United States and elsewhere, and this has been exacerbated by incorrect and misleading comments from elected officials and candidates for office.


This is too important an issue to allow prejudices, nativism and misinformation posing as fact to color our objective policy ideas.  To try to cut through some of the false narratives, here is a list of myths and facts about Syrian refugees, American refugee policy, and other issues in the news lately.


Once we can all agree as to the facts, we can begin determining what, if anything, we need to do here at home on this issue.


Myth #1 – There is a flood of Syrian refugees entering the United States.
This myth has been making the rounds, and was given credence yesterday by Donald Trump.

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump] Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
Refugees from Syria are now pouring into our great country. Who knows who they are - some could be ISIS. Is our president insane?
8:54 AM - 17 Nov 2015

This just isn’t true.


According to the State Department. 1,869 Syrians have entered the United States since October 2014.  The bulk of those, 1,682, came during FY 2015.  The White House pegs the total number of Syrians who have been relocated to the United States since 2011, the start of the Syrian civil war, at 2,034.


The New York Times used slightly different numbers in this article with a map showing relocations, claiming 1,854 have entered the United States since 2012.


According to the Virginia Department of Social Services, 25 Syrian refugees have been relocated to Virginia in FY 2015, and none so far in FY 2016, which began October 1.


There is no flood of refugees. Given the tens and hundreds of thousands of refugees being accepted in Europe and the Middle East, this is a relative trickle.


Myth #2 – The Obama Administration wants to allow hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to relocate to the United States.


This myth has been all over the place, far longer than the blowback from the Paris Bombings.  As Glenn Kessler notes in his Washington Post Fact Check column, three of the top Republican presidential candidates have repeated this myth in recent days.

Quote:“Our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria. I mean, think of it. 250,000 people. And we all have heart. And we all want people taken care of and all of that. But with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 people — some of whom are going to have problems, big problems.”
— Donald Trump, Nov. 14
“When the president says things like, you know, through an executive order, ‘I’m going to bring 100,000 people in here from Syria,’ Congress needs to say ‘you do that and we’re going to defund everything including your breakfast.’”
— Ben Carson, quoted in a SuperPac ad released Nov. 17
 “I am angry that President Obama unilaterally decides that we’ll accept up to 100,000 Syrian refugees while his administration admits we cannot determine their ties to terrorism.”
— Carly Fiorina, Nov. 14

There’s nothing accurate about these claims. The Obama Administration, by Congressional authorization and not by executive order, sets the total number of refugees permitted to relocate to the United States each year. That number has hovered around 70,000 total over the past few years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.  The President has been under pressure to increase that number, given the number of refugee creating crises around the globe, including in Syria, Africa and Iraq.  He has pledged to increase the number we accept gradually, from 70,000 to 85,000 in FY 2016, and 100,000 in FY 2017.


As the Post noted here in a September article, the President has ordered an increase in the total number of refugees from any country, and has set a goal of allowing 10,000 Syrians to relocate here in the next fiscal year.
10,000 is a smaller number than 200,000.


Myth #3 – We don’t vet Syrian refugees before they come here and the FBI Director says we can’t vet them.


A variety of elected officials have claimed that we don’t vet or can’t vet Syrian refugees before they come here, including Congressman Louie Gohmert.


Not only is that false, it flies in the face of other facts – namely, that the reason we have accepted so few Syrian refugees since 2011 is because of the intense and time consuming vetting process to screen out possible insurgents.  From the Post article from last September: “So far, the United States has lagged far behind several European countries in its refu­gee aid efforts, largely due to the time-consuming screening procedure to block Islamist militants and criminals from entering the United States under the guise of being legitimate refugees.”


Myth #4 – Most of the refugees are men of military age.


You’ll see this myth most often on social media, but it was reported on blogs and elsewhere.  The claim is that this figure was proven by the United Nations, but the data they are referring to is based solely on the numbers of refugees who are trying to enter Europe, doesn’t include any age ranges besides “men” and “children” and isn’t restricted to Syrians, either


This is another one of those situations where social media and the blogs misread a chart and then run with the idea.  The facts are more in line with what you would expect – based on the UNHCR’s registration data, 22% of the total number of refugees are military aged males (18-45).  Over half the total are women, and more than half of the males are either younger than 18 or older than 60.  There is evidence that many young men in Syria don’t want to fight, but they aren’t constituting anything close to a majority of refugees.


In the United States, the numbers are strikingly different – of those admitted for resettlement in America, only 2% were men of military age unattached to a family or with no family (which I take to mean, unmarried).  That’s a far cry from the claims of some that we’re letting in loads of unattached men in their early 20s, ripe for radicalization.


Myth #5 – Posing as a refugee is an easy way to get into the United States.


If the facts provided in Myth #3 didn’t make it clear that posing as a refugee is not an easy way to enter America, let’s look at the alternatives.


Of the confirmed identities of the Paris bombers, we know that three have been identified as French nationals and one as a Belgian national.  If they had wanted to carry out these attacks in the United States, they could have easily gotten here through the Visa Waiver program.


38 countries participate in the United States Visa Waiver program, which is designed to allow for expedited processing of tourists and travelers to the United States.  Most of the EU nations are on there, including France and Belgium.  The only other step is paying a fee and an online screening through a DHS database.  That’s a far easier process than waiting the year or two required to get into the United States as a refugee.


Myth #6 – Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States aren’t taking in any refugees.


This is another common myth, often paired with questions regarding why the U.S. should be accepting any refugees at all if their own neighbors aren’t doing so.  This one is all over social media, and in the conservative press.


As usual, this is not true.  The bulk of the estimated 4 million refugees from Syria have been settled in the surrounding states.  Nearly 2 million in Turkey, another million in Lebanon, 600,000 in Jordan and over 100,000 in Egypt and Iraq each.


On Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, that claim at least, has a rational explanation. The primary reason for this myth is that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States are not signatories of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.  Thus, their refugee relocations are not handled by the UNHCR, and their statistics aren’t compiled by the UNHCR.  So if you go looking for stats on Saudi Arabia or UAE through the UNHCR’s website, you’re not going to find anything.


Saudi Arabia claims to have relocated over 2.5 million refugees within it’s territory.  And they’re tired of people disbelieving them.  Even though the UN doesn’t count them, they acknowledge that at least 500,000 refugees have ended up in Saudi Arabia.


Myth #7 – The Boston Bombers were refugees.


This one has started to make the rounds because of a Washington Post article with some misleading reporting.


There’s a big difference between refugees and those who are granted asylum, not the least of which is asylum is granted to those already physically present in the United States, whereas refugees are waiting outside to be let in.  The Tsarnaev brothers were both granted derivative asylum through their parents, all who traveled to the U.S. on tourist visas.  They were not refugees and did not go through the refugee screening process.


The asylum process is similar to the refugee process with a major distinction – the asylee is present in the United States throughout the entire process, even if his asylum request is denied.  Refugees aren’t.  That’s a big difference.


Regardless, at the time of their entering the United States – more than a decade prior to the Boston Bombings, neither of the Tsarnaev brothers were on anybody’s radar, which makes sense, as they were both 15 and 8 at the time.  That didn’t happen until in 2013.


Myth #8 – Governors can bar refugees from being placed in their states.


A quick reading of the Constitution, which vests all of the immigration and naturalization powers in the Federal Government and makes Federal law the supreme law of the land, should blow up this argument.  Unfortunately Governors from a variety of states, both Democrat and Republican, have claimed that they will prevent Syrian refugees from being located within their states.


They don’t have the authority to do this.  They know they don’t have the authority to do this.  But it makes for a good headline.


The Refugee Act of 1980 authorizes that “the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section . . .  shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”  Once admitted to the United States, they are free to move about the country, just like any other legal resident alien or citizen.


Even Breitbart acknowledges that the Governors can’t overrule the President.


What the Governors can do is refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities to ease the placement of these individuals, which is commonly what happens today.  State and local governments work with the State Department to ensure placements that make sense – placements in areas where there are support networks, native language speakers or family members who can assist with transition.  Governors could refuse to work with the Federal government in that regard, which would simply run up the costs and force the Federal government to bring on more staff to handle these locations.  Not exactly the most fiscally conservative solution, but it’s within their power.  Fortunately, most of the efforts to relocate and ease transition for refugees are handled by voluntary organizations.  There’s a great article about one family’s journey in National Geographic from last February.


Conclusions
Draw your own.  While some will continue to claim that even one bad apple could cause a major attack here in the U.S., it’s important to note that no refugees admitted as refugees have ever committed an act of terror in the United States.  Yes, a few have been involved in crime, terror plots (a total of 3 have been convicted of plotting attacks outside the U.S.) and some have been arrested, but to date, not one American has been killed in America by a refugee.  Not allowing in refugees has security risks associated with it too, namely the propaganda victory ISIS and others can use as leverage, demonstrating their ability to influence our foreign policy through terror.  This is what they want us to do.  A number of evangelical groups and the U.S. Conference of Bishops are pushing back on calls to limit refugee relocation, given their traditional support and assistance for supporting refugees.  When it comes down to it, barring refugees is fundamentally unAmerican.  As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address:

Quote:“And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one—a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.”

A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn’t get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that’s what it was to be an American in the 1980’s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again—and in a way, we ourselves—rediscovered it.”

We stand for freedom in the world.  We shouldn’t let terrorists – here or in Europe – change that.


But that’s just my take.  Draw your own conclusions, and let them be based on facts, not fear.



UDPATE: French President Francois Hollande has said that Francewill increase the number of refugees it accepts to 30,000.  These guys just got hit by major terrorist attacks and they’re letting more refugees in.  We haven’t been hit at all, and we are debating whether we should let in any.  For all those Francophobes who mock the French for surrendering, this is the opposite of that.  If the French are willing to do this less than a week after these attacks, we should stop and think about how we’ve addressed this issue at home.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2017, 03:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Hasn't the ban expired? When does this become moot?

The problem is that they wanted the travel ban in place so that they could assess the programs and the procedures. Then the ban was halted and they never ended up doing the assessment. As the case dragged on, Trump did tell cabinet officials to go ahead and proceed with the assessment (I tried to find a link to a story about this meeting, but I can't find one with my half-assed Google search).

So, the ban would have been played out had it been enacted originally, but since it was intended to place a halt to things while they evaluated things they didn't start the clock on things until it was able to be implemented. But, they decided to start the evaluation while the ban had been stopped, which raises the question of why it was needed in the first place. Especially since with current policies in place there have been no incidents.

It's all a big mess, really.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2017, 03:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Also while trying to find out about a story posted on FB about something sort of related I came across this post from 2016.

I figured it was worth adding to this thread about Syrian immigration rather than a new thread.

https://bearingdrift.com/2015/11/18/myths-vs-facts-in-the-syrian-refugee-issue/


It's a long read so I did cut out a couple paragraphs but the majority is here.

The folks from Bearing Drift frustrate the hell out of me, sometimes, but in general they are pretty even keeled.

Sorry, had to stick with the nautical term.

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-third-travel-ban/2017/10/17/e73293fc-ae90-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.a4ada95f5991

Quote:Federal judge blocks Trump’s third travel ban


A federal judge on Tuesday largely blocked the Trump administration from implementing the latest version of the president’s controversial travel ban, setting up yet another legal showdown on the extent of the executive branch’s powers when it comes to setting immigration policy.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii is sure to be appealed, but for now, it means that the administration cannot restrict the entry of travelers from six of the eight countries that officials said were unable or unwilling to provide information that the United States wanted to vet the countries’ citizens.

The latest ban was set to go fully into effect in the early hours of Wednesday, barring various types of travelers from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. Watson’s order stops it, at least temporarily, with respect to all the countries except North Korea and Venezuela.

In a 40-page decision granting the state of Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order nationwide, Watson wrote that the latest ban “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.”


Watson also wrote that the executive order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that is opposed to federal law and “the founding principles of this Nation.”


The White House said in a statement that Watson’s “dangerously flawed” order “undercuts the President’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States.”

“These restrictions are vital to ensuring that foreign nations comply with the minimum security standards required for the integrity of our immigration system and the security of our Nation,” the White House said. “We are therefore confident that the Judiciary will ultimately uphold the President’s lawful and necessary action and swiftly restore its vital protections for the safety of the American people.”

The State Department said that it instructed embassies and consulates across the globe to resume regular processing of visas for people from the six countries but that it would implement the order for those affected from Venezuela and North Korea. Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior said government lawyers would appeal the judge’s decision in an “expeditious manner.”



“Today’s ruling is incorrect, fails to properly respect the separation of powers, and has the potential to cause serious negative consequences for our national security,” he said.

Opponents of the ban, though, hailed the judge’s ruling. Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said, “Today is another victory for the rule of law. We stand ready to defend it.”

Omar Jadwat, who directs the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and was involved in a separate challenge to the ban in federal court in Maryland, said, “We’re glad, but not surprised, that President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional Muslim ban has been blocked once again.”

Trump was blocked by courts from imposing his last two versions of the travel ban, but the ultimate question of whether he ever had the authority to implement such a measure remains somewhat murky.

The Supreme Court had been scheduled to hear arguments on his second travel ban, inked in March, which barred the entry of citizens from six majority-Muslim countries and refugees from everywhere. But a key portion of that ban expired and Trump issued his latest ban before the hearing.

That prompted the justices to remove oral arguments from the calendar. They later dismissed one of the challenges to the March version of the ban.

Federal appeals courts had ruled against the Trump administration on the last measure, and Watson relied in part on the precedent from one of those cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court, though, had vacated the precedent from the other ruling that went against the administration in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

[Latest travel ban will probably affect tens of thousands, and it could short-circuit the court battle]

The state of Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project and others who sued over the March travel ban asked judges to block the new one in federal courts in Hawaii, Washington state and Maryland. They argued that Trump had exceeded his legal authority to set immigration policy and that the latest measure — like the last two — fulfilled his unconstitutional campaign promise to implement a Muslim ban. As of Tuesday afternoon, the judges in Maryland and Washington state had yet to rule, although arguments in Washington are scheduled for Oct. 30.



“It exceeds the limits on the President’s exclusion authority that have been recognized for nearly a century, by supplanting Congress’s immigration policies with the President’s own unilateral and indefinite ban,” the challengers in Hawaii wrote of the new ban. “And it continues to effectuate the President’s unrepudiated promise to exclude Muslims from the United States.”

Hawaii asked a judge to block the ban with respect to all the majority-Muslim countries; the state’s lawyers did not challenge the measures imposed against Venezuela and North Korea.

Watson did not address whether the ban was constitutional; rather, he limited his analysis to whether Trump had exceeded the authority Congress has given the president to impose restrictions on those wanting to enter the United States. Of particular concern, he said, were that officials seemed to treat someone’s nationality as an indicator of the threat the person poses — without providing evidence of a connection between the two.

Watson said that the order did “not reveal why existing law is insufficient to address the President’s described concerns” and that it was internally flawed — for example, by exempting Iraq from the banned list even though Iraq failed the U.S. government’s security assessment.

Legal analysts had said challengers of the latest travel ban would face an uphill battle, particularly because the measure was put into effect after an extensive process in which the United States negotiated with other countries for information.

Such a process, legal analysts said, presumably would help the government defeat arguments that the president had not made the appropriate findings to justify his order. The list of countries affected also was changed to include two countries that are not majority Muslim — Venezuela and North Korea — potentially helping the government argue that the measure was not meant to discriminate against Muslims.

Challengers to the ban, however, sought to link the new directive to its predecessors, and they asserted that even the additions were mainly symbolic. The ban only affects certain government officials from Venezuela, and very few people travel to the United States from North Korea each year. They noted that Trump himself promised a “larger, tougher, and more specific” ban — meaning that the new version would have the same legal problems as the earlier iterations.

The directive imposed more complete bans on some countries than on others, and the Trump administration has indicated that countries could make their way off the list if conditions changed.

For Syria and North Korea, the president’s proclamation blocked immigrants wanting to relocate to the United States and nonimmigrants wishing to visit in some capacity. For Iran, the proclamation blocked both immigrants and nonimmigrants, although it exempted students and those participating in a cultural exchange.

The proclamation blocked people from Chad, Libya and Yemen from coming to the United States as immigrants or on business or tourist visas, and it blocked people from Somalia from coming as immigrants. The proclamation named Venezuela, but it only blocked certain government officials.

[StLucieBengal]

Federal Judges lol.

[*bfine32*]

Seems as if they'll allow it:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban-211853485--politics.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=d44fbfea-d29f-11e5-ac3f-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews

[*Nately120*]

(12-04-2017, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems as if they'll allow it:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban-211853485--politics.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=d44fbfea-d29f-11e5-ac3f-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews

Just in time for Christmas.  It's times like this when I'm most glad I don't believe Jesus is waiting to judge me when I die.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-04-2017, 06:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems as if they'll allow it:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban-211853485--politics.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=d44fbfea-d29f-11e5-ac3f-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews

Good, the 9th district needed a slap down.

[*jason*]

(12-04-2017, 08:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Just in time for Christmas.  It's times like this when I'm most glad I don't believe Jesus is waiting to judge me when I die.

But Muhammad is waiting.... Bahawhawhawhaw.

[Mike M (the other one)]

It's tough being a Trump Supporter. So much winning.
Next up Tax reform.

Trump for 4 more!