Do you support the Trump executive order for moratorium from 7 ...?

1. 81

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   The executive order to suspend entry from 7 middle east countries for 90 days.
   Before you answer, consider the following,
   1. Is this order Constitutional?
   2. Was there precedence for this type of order by previous presidents?
   3. Does a district judge from Seattle have the right to stop it?
   4.  What if we experience a terrorist attack in the mean time?
   
   The answer to question 1 and 2 is yes.
   The answer to question 3 is to be decided by the 9th circuit court...
   The answer to number 4 is speculation of course.
   
   If an incident happens and it could to traced to a person or cell from ISIS from one of those 7 countries...
   The politicians like Senator Schumer from NY will be the first one to the microphone crying tears and wanting to impeach President Trump for failing to protect the American people...
   
   His excuse will be he didn't have access to the presidential daily briefings that warn of impending attacks...
   
   So you see, the answer to my first question is not so simple is it?
   That is why we elected Presidents to make these type of decisions...

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      are you kidding?  Islamic terrorists do not want to kill anyone, rape anyone, have a murderous agenda of cleansing the world of the blue eyed devils. They do not want to come over here and cause death and destruction. ISIS has not declared: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.”
      
      And France and Germany are  F I N E  ! ! ! !  !  !  !    !
      
      " … Mike Hookem ... blames Chancellor Merkel for “huge security risks” posed by her open-door migrant policy.
      
      A call for action was meanwhile voiced over the weekend by Hungarian President Viktor Orban. He pledged a united “European army” to face challenges for the continent, including “migration.”
      
      The EU should face a 'new reality,' Ricardo Baretzky, president of the European Centre for Information Policy and Security, told RT. He said that risks of “infiltration” and 'sleeper cells' were reported by his organization over the years.
      
      'Without proper screening of backgrounds you have to expect such things to happen,' Baretzky said with regard to refugees in Europe not being thoroughly checked by authorities. Europe is only “at the birth” of the migration issue, the expert claimed. He added that the continent should team up in its efforts to ensure more security. “Reform of the policies” and a “single judicial system across Europe” would be part of any solution, Baretzky said. "
      From
      https://www.rt.com/news/353203-germany- … ism-leads/
      
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … -other-way
      
      The ban is temporary while we find ways to properly screen. Nuts isn't it?

      replyreport
   2. 78

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Hannity says that a new Congressional Research Service report titled "Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens",  shows that the last 5 presidents have used executive authority to limit or restrict the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the U.S. a total of 43 times.
      
      Ronald Reagan - Five times
      George H. W Bush - One time
      Bill Clinton - 12 times
      George W. Bush - Six times
      Barack Obama - 19 times
      *  http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-e … -15538982/
      *  https://strongvisa.com/wp-content/uploa … Aliens.pdf
      
      So, if it was Constitutional then, it should be Constitutional now.  It stands to reason to me, unless their is something sinister going on. 
      
      The American Center for Law and Justice wrote and article titled "Everything You Need to Know about Judge’s Hold on President Trump’s Executive Order".
      *  https://aclj.org/national-security/ever … tive-order
      
      They concluded:
      
      The directives contained in the President’s Executive Order are closely tethered to discretionary powers vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution and Congress and clearly fall within the President’s well-established constitutional and statutory authority.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      1. The legality of the order has not be determined yet. It can only be determined by a court of law. 
      
      2. Yes. There is precedent for this type of order.
      
      3. Yes. A federal judge has the right to judge matters of law. To be accurate, the Seattle judge has not judged the merit of the order itself, he has temporarily halted it until a case on the merits of the order can be heard. The government has appealed that halt. The 9th circuit court is not deciding if the judge has the "right" to judge in this case. He does. They are deciding whether the judge was correct in temporarily halting the executive order. The case on whether the order itself is legal or not, has not yet started..
      
      4. a) The number of fatal terrorist attacks committed by someone from those 7 countries between 1975 and 2015 is: 0. What evidence is there that the likelihood of an attack increased so much on Feb 3, that an immediate suspension of people from those countries was necessary? b) The majority of domestic terrorist attacks are committed by US citizens. Should the President declare a nationwide curfew under martial law, because there is a risk that a US citizen could commit a terrorist attack?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You are missing my point. The past is no indicator of the future. Before 9/11, no one thought airplanes could be used for missiles into buildings...
         Are you willing to take a chance on gambling American lives, perhaps your own, in light of what ISIS have claimed in public their intentions?
         How naive...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Also the California bill ---PROTECTS ---the  illegal felons serving time now from being deported !
            Anybody read that bill yet ?

            replyreport
         2. 82

            Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Prior actions are an indicator used to evaluate risk. That's why insurance premiums are affected by previous claims. By your logic the fact that most US citizens haven't committed a terrorist attack means nothing. The risk that they could means the president should declare marshal law immediately to protect the country. That's just silly.
            
            Getting a visa involves a vetting process. People from those countries were already required to get a visa to enter the country, prior to Feb 3. Can you demonstrate that from Feb 3 the risk posed by someone from those countries suddenly increased to such a degree, that an immediate suspension of every person (including children) from those countries was necessary to prevent "irreparable harm"? In other words, what evidence is there that the visa requirements for those countries before Feb 3, suddenly became insufficient after Feb 3?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               jackcleeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               That is not the issue. The fact is we have no good way to vet these people before Feb. 3. Those countries have no functioning government to speak of. What Trump is trying to do is to correct a problem that existed since the Obama Admin. Which decided to turn a blind eye to these issues...
               
               To me the bigger tragedy of this whole thing is the state of Syria. How did we allow a country to decentigrade to a point where over 1 million people became refugees?  How does that happen in 2016? Where is the UN? Where is the International community that suppose to make sure these things don't happen? If the UN cannot fulfill this mandate of peace keeping, what good are they? Why are we bothering with spending $$$ to support a failed organization. I would put that money to good use and build refugee camps nearby to house and protect these refugees.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You make it sound like before Feb 3, people from those countries could just buy a plane ticket and walk straight into the country. That's not true. They already had to go through a vetting process. If they did not, they could not get a visa. No visa, no entry. The requirements for a US visa were clear, and included an interview at a local US embassy or consulate.
                  
                  If someone could not meet the requirements. No entry.
                  If someone did not have the necessary information. No entry.
                  If someone could not confirm the necessary information to the satisfaction of the embassy or consulate. No entry.
                  
                  So for the second time, can you demonstrate that from Feb 3, the risk increased to such a high degree, that only an immediate suspension of every person from those countries could reduce the risk?
                  
                  Don't get me wrong. Is it reasonable for a president to review the visa and immigration system, to make sure people who want to do harm are not able to enter the country? Yes, that's very reasonable.
                  
                  But is it reasonable for a president to go on television and say he wants to ban Muslims from entering the country, then ask his advisor how to do that legally, then issue an order that bans every man, woman and child from countries that just happen to be Muslim majority countries, then say he intends to prioritize refugees who are Christians? Nope. That's reasonable, and the courts are trying to determine whether it is also unconstitutional.

                  replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               And by your logic that only a few "refugees" and "immigrants" actually turn out to be terrorists is a reason to let everyone in as they choose.  That's just silly.
               
               Yes, it involves a vetting process.  One that is grossly insufficient when dealing with some countries as almost no information is available. 
               
               But what makes you insist that the risk factor went up?  Because Trump made the decision that current vetting was insufficient does not indicate an increase in risk; it indicates that vetting was insufficient and is exactly what was said.  Same thing for requirements before Feb 3 - to pretend that it "suddenly became insufficient after Feb. 3" is also silly as it never WAS sufficient.  Just used anyway.

               replyreport
   4. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It seems an actual judge disagreed about #1. A Republican judge as it happens.  I will take their decision as more definitive than forum gossip.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Of course any judge can have their own opinion, just like any individual citizen. What matters is not what I say but what the Constitution say...A judge can go against the Constitution and be over ruled by a higher court. It happens all the time, especially to activist judges such as those on the 9th circuit. Just look it up. They do not have a stellar history of up holding the Constitution. If you don't  like what people say in blogs, why are you reading it?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Judge's rulings are not their opinion, they are expert judgements of fact under the law, in this case that the order was unconstitutional.
            
            When you become a judge, I will give your ruling equal weighting,  Until then, the judge and expert on the Constitution wins.
            
            And if this judge was an activist (he is not) he would be a Conservative activist.  He is one million miles away from being politically on the left and is a Republican appointee.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, I don't need to be a judge to know if something is Constitutional or not. I can read it. That was the intent of the Founding Fathers. It is written in simple language and not legalese. Activist judges try to interpret the Constitution and make mistakes all the time... Many Supreme court rulings are over turned later on. Don't give me this argument that a judge has the final say. Read your Constitution and learn it before you debate...It is good to have the facts on your side. By the way, we are not gossiping here in case you don't realize. We are engaged in active debate where everyone here is by choice and who cares about our country and its future. I respect opinion from all sides.

               replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "Judge's rulings are not their opinion, they are expert judgements of fact under the law"
               
               If only that were true!  But it's not, as evidenced by decision after decision from the highest judges in the land that are strictly along party lines.  Judgements of fact do not come from party platforms, but rulings all too often do just that.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Agreed, it is a shame. What ever happen to their oath of office? ... to support and defend the Constitution...

                  replyreport
               2. 84

                  psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  In this case the judge is politically highly conservative and known for being driven by a desire to serve the law.
                  
                  I can think of no logical reason to assume he became an activist hippy overnight.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Other than his track record, and previous 'progressive' decisions.

                     replyreport
   5. 75

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A very common sense outlook to the matter.  How you approach the issue is how the Courts should have approached it, the fact that it wasn't approached that way... shows the bias... and the political agenda that was intent in the rulings.
      
      For certain, the EO could have been written clearer, more precisely, to avoid the necessity of any correction, to avoid any confusion.  Still one has to answer your questions as follows:
      
      1. Is this order Constitutional?
      YES
      2. Was there precedence for this type of order by previous presidents?
      YES
      3. Does a district judge from Seattle have the right to stop it?
      NO ***
      4.  What if we experience a terrorist attack in the mean time?
      The blame can then be laid firmly at the feet of the Judges who have ruled against the EO and the Executive Branch.  The buck stops with them.
      
      ***
      The Constitution extends the authority, the jurisdiction if you will, to the President to decide who can and cannot enter into America, for ANY and ALL non-U.S. citizens.  Nor does any American law, nor any jurisprudence from our Courts extend its authority over FORIEGN citizens of other countries.  Period.  End of Debate.
      
      All other arguments, contentions, and positions are secondary to those truths.  The Judges in this matter, have abused their position, have exceeded their authorities, and have made arguments in an effort to delegitimize both the Constitution of the United States and the authority of the Executive Office. 
      
      They simply do not have the authority, nor the information necessary, nor the experience necessary to be making decisions on issues which pertain to National Security and the Safety of the Nation against foreign threats.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Well said. Three thumbs up!!!

         replyreport
      2. 90

         GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Hello Ken, I hope you will consider another perspective, because I think you are wrong. Period. End of debate!
         
         Except that it is not the end of the debate. Just because I think you are wrong, does not confirm that you are wrong, (that will come later). Just as your certainty that you are correct does not confirm that you are.
         
         I think you are right that Pres. Trump did have constitutional and legislative authority, backed by judicial review, to issue the "Travel Ban" Executive Order, (EO). But from there, I think you missed a couple considerations.
         
         I think the mechanism used to exercise that authority is separate from that authority, (just think of some typical Dictator/Decree comparison). It has to be that way. And it has been that way throughout our history. Surely you can recall historical instances of EOs being challenged, reversed, or struck down. The authority of the power may not be judicially challenged, but the mechanism that exercises that power has always been reviewable. Our system of government requires it.
         
         Could you consider any part of that valid? I don't see how any reasonable person wouldn't, (considering my world renown wisdom and oratory talents); which means your objection to the court's authority was misdirected.
         
         And since you brought up, misdirected, it's even worse. Your conviction seems to be based, (at least partially), on smoke. The 9th did not rule on Trump's authority to write the EO, and purposely abstained from offering an opinion on that issue in their decision.
         
         Their ruling only decided whether to uphold or stay the original Temporary Restraining Order, (TRO).  The government only had to offer sufficient evidence to convince the court that they would win their appeal of the original TRO. Even though your criticism of the decision would still be wrong, it might be more appropriate to the the original TRO - not the 9th's decision. *sorry for the recitation, just wanted to note the steps to get from here to there
         
         Since those are the facts of the court's ruling, not the declaration that the court was violating the constitution, and, considering that I think you might agree with the reasonableness of my first point, I think there is still room for debate...
         
         I think the court got it right, it never challenged Pres. Trump's authority, and I think the administration's actions since the decision confirm this.
         
         If any of this made sense to you, then the debate could be about why you failed to consider the mechanism of the power as reviewable, and why you misrepresented, (or misunderstood), the court's decision to be something it wasn't.
         
         You speak of the soundness of a common-sense approach to issues like this, and seem to prefer a foundational(sp?) approach to issues, (which I too embrace and endorse), yet on this one it looks like your foundation has crumbled - Trump's authority was not challenged, (the main block in your foundation), and your version of common-sense seems to skip over points that challenge it - the authority of the courts over the mechanisms of power.
         
         ps. I left point #4 to a ps. note. It's original inclusion by Jackclee, and your attention to it, are both beneath you. Just let it go.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Timeline: Attacks in France, 2012- 2016
   http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33288542

   replyreport
3. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   ISIS is killing Christians, beheading children and raping women in Mosul.
   
   "What is happening in Iraq and Syria, especially to Christians, is not hyperbole. The pledges of ISIS must be taken seriously. They have carried out every threat they have made. They have shown no mercy to children or their mothers. They revel in killing and are nothing more than an army of religious zealots and psychopaths. Their numbers are growing because nobody in the world is doing anything to stop them. Every murderous, blood-lusting Muslim who can reach the area is flocking to join ISIS and participate in the killing spree.
   
   This is no longer an issue for Iraq alone to deal with. The entire planet has a solemn responsibility to deal swiftly with ISIS and to neutralize their threat to all civilized people.
   
   That the world sits and watches is the epitome of shame and an indelible blight on humanity. "
   
   Who cannot agree?
   
   
   http://www.catholic.org/news/internatio … p?id=56481

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I see two options: either the adherents of Islam take control and eliminate terrorism or the world will gather and eliminate any vestige of Islam.  I really don't see another answer; to think that the world can eliminate Islamic terrorism while millions of Muslims promote and aid it is unrealistic.

      replyreport
4. 54

   annygetyogun126posted 7 years ago

   Isis is no different than the Klan and White Supremacist groups. I don't understand why people can't see the difference. Yes, ISIS will and do kill Christians but the Klan kills Blacks, Jews, and gays and America don't seem to care about that. I do and think something needs to be done. Drumpf said "America First," well he needs to clean up house here in America before we go and pass judgment on other hate groups.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Trump doesn't even have an Attorney General yet because the Democrats are doing everything they can to filibuster that to slow him down.  Maybe they don't want to swamp drained in DC and Democratically controlled states cleaned up so much.   
      
      Give President Trump time, he is doing a lot behind the scenes that doesn't get reported by the media because that would paint him in a good light. 
      
      I hope Trump keeps his promise to the people of Haiti like he said he would during the campaign.  They really need help, now.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Pass Judgement???!!!  ISIS is out to destroy Christians. Apparently, they love the beheading, the raping, the death and destruction. Wouldn't you like SOMEONE to try and prevent them from arriving in America and subjecting us to this type of ruthlessness? Look at France. Look at Germany. Look at Mosul. Do you not look?
      
      Here you go! Take a look!
      http://www.catholic.org/news/internatio … p?id=56481

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   There's a new sheriff  in town ;
   
   THE VAST SILENT MORAL MAJORITY ,    Still exists in America and it is this majority  , however you electorally divide it up,  that not only elected Trump  but  also elected his policies and agenda .   
   Everyone from the liberally soaked federal  courts to the  leftist minions  in the senate had better get on board , Of course his executive orders are legally justified and morally just .
   
   Next - Drain the senate swamp !

   replyreport