Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

You have a penchant for logical leaps that seem to me to be essentially non sequiturs.

What does bannimg Mislims from traveling to the USA have to do with the desirsbility of emigrating to Saudi Arabia?

Case in point - no sane person wanted to emigrate to die Deutsches Reich, but im sure glad that Albert Einstein, Leo Szliard, Edwin Teller and friends were not banned from entering this country so we could make the bad guys go "boom!" In 1945 and not vice versa.

 

Saudi Arabia is not on the list of seven countries. But Sudan is:

Gee, sounds like a wonderful country. Can't see any possible reason why immigration from such a country should be restricted.

 

Shoulda kept that dirty Jew Akbert Einstein out of the country. After all, he came from a country mass murderibg Jews!

Yep, makes total sense.

 

Not knowing if you simply just want to stop all Muslims from entering the country (if so, its pointless for me to answer), but in the example you cite, the refugees from Sudan wanting to enter the US are very likely responsible for atrocities you mentioned.

 

Its like it the "i like turtles" kid was asked a follow up question about enjoying the fair by the reporter and turtle kid went on to list every species of turtle that he liked in alphabetical order.

I get it, dude, you like turtles.

 

btw, was Spicer's absence from today's press conference just a coincidence? Or should people be looking in bushes again?

 

Ninth Circuit Court rules unanimously against Trump and his Muslim Ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/12/9th-circuit-rules-against-trump-travel-ban.html

 

And, the Ninth Circuit quoted Trump's tweets in their ruling...

 

Trump is Trump's worst enemy.

 

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that Spicer was taking on more responsibilities and so may not be able to do as many press briefings going forward.

 

What does the Ninth Circuit Court know about constitutional law? Hardly anything, amiright?

 

In an regretful decision that provides a win for Trump and his Muslim ban, the Roberts Supreme Court overruled the lower courts hold on the Muslim ban with minor stipulations. Though the court agreed to hear the case, they acknowledge that commitment to hear the case in the fall is moot since it is supposedly a "90-day Muslim ban". Sad day for the country, reflecting the possibility that the new Roberts court will likely rule increasingly to the right.

 

Travel ban* ^

 

Sometimes when you play the activist court game making rulings for political rather than legal reasons, you get overruled by the SCOTUS.

 

From WaPo:

"The court made an important exception: It said the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

This seems really capricious by the USSC. Where do they have the authority to make up exceptions like this? Does someone have an understanding of what this is about? If it's not a binary decision of allow or don't allow, they should at least have some reasoning that people with relationships have a different standing. I don't see why that would be.

And, I would think this is more than a 'minor stipulation.' If university students, people coming to visit relatives, people coming on business trips all have qualifying relationships, then that's probably >80% of traffic. The only people left subject to a travel ban would be straight-up tourists. I wonder if this is a way to give Trump a win in optics but not in fact.

Anyway, I still basically trust the USSC. Hopefully, this doesn't go too off the rails. The "temporary" aspect of the ban is some obvious bs. We've already done 90 days since the order was issued. If there was some vetting of the process that was going to be done, it'd be complete by now. I don't recall any announcement that it's even been started. It is apparent to me this was some elementary shell game in which the Admin was hoping to slide by with some suspect policy on the grace that it is only temporary, only to come back 3 months later and say more time is needed, and then again later, until they can either say it is working so well it should be permanent or else they achieve de facto permanence with delays.

 

This has been discussed at length:

Though I guess the debate is moot, as Trump's Muslim ban will be in place the next few days.

 

Just so you know, you can keep trying to spin it forever and it won't change a thing. Given that people of every religion from those states are banned, not just Muslims, it makes it a travel ban, not a Muslim ban. I'm sure deep down you know this but as usual with you, partisanship won't allow you to be rational.

 

Our government must have the ability to regulate. Regulation is key to a civil society.