jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (5 posts)

What would keep US embassies and consulates from drastically reducing the number

  1. Perspycacious profile image82
    Perspycaciousposted 11 months ago

    What would keep US embassies and consulates from drastically reducing the number of visas issued?

    And specifically to those wishing U. S. visas to come to the USA from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/11930644_f260.jpg

  2. Ericdierker profile image57
    Ericdierkerposted 11 months ago

    So funny Demas. This ruling on a "ban" is just legally hilarious. What? A TSA agent cannot get suspicious of a person walking through the airport? A screening agent cannot, not allow a suspicious person from getting on a plane or off of one?  Oh MY!!? What about a person clearly sick with fever?
    Anyone of people coming in from these countries can be denied entry on a very settle and old law. USCBP notice: """Visitors traveling to the U.S. are required to be in possession of passports that are valid for six months beyond the period of their intended stay in the U.S"".
    The clear problem is that no citizen of these countries can fulfill that requirement because their countries are so corrupt and incompetent. No way do they produce "valid" passports. They are as invalid as they can be.
    But there is not a danged ban. As even cited in the court records and pleadings - the only mention of a ban is during a campaign.
    To date no one has been denied entry.
    This situation is what us legal writers call the Ninth Circus.
    But here is the cool part. This case case is under Justice Kennedy. If he allows this nonsense to go further, it will totally destroy scholars confidence in our current SCOTUS.
    Demas - there is an interesting side note. The very people that are proposing dismantling the Electoral College -- which would be a total attack on State's rights, are the very people demanding state's rights in this matter.  And these people are the same lineage that demanded state's rights in opposition to Johnson's civil rights laws.
    When it comes to the law,,, I am politics blind. And this here matter is bad juju for our constitution.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image34
      bradmasterOCcalposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Eric, that was well done. And if the SCOTUS tied that would be a bad decision. It means that interpreting the US Constitution is impossible because it has been watered down over the decades.

    2. Ericdierker profile image57
      Ericdierkerposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Brad this is the strangest thing. Because BHO did not enforce and execute laws of congress it is now unconstitutional to do so. Just like the Fence which is already funded. POTUS may not enforce the law. George Wallace and Huey Long - Dems all repeat

  3. tamarawilhite profile image92
    tamarawilhiteposted 11 months ago

    Losing their jobs for violating the orders from their boss.

 
working