(06-12-2017 04:05 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  What if a law were created saying it was legal?

Quote:Sometimes, what people think they want is the least important factor in a situation.

Then please, remember this the next time you're tempted to yell "muh democracy"... I actually agree with you here which is why I favor a constitutionally bound and limited federal republic and not powerful central democracy.

If it were legal, then it wouldn't be against the law. That's the line, for me.

Point is, go through the proper methods, that are established and have been for some time, to have the law changed and/or make a new law.

(06-12-2017 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 04:05 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  What if a law were created saying it was legal?

Quote:Sometimes, what people think they want is the least important factor in a situation.

Then please, remember this the next time you're tempted to yell "muh democracy"... I actually agree with you here which is why I favor a constitutionally bound and limited federal republic and not powerful central democracy.

If it were legal, then it wouldn't be against the law. That's the line, for me.

Point is, go through the proper methods, that are established and have been for some time, to have the law changed and/or make a new law.

He doesnt need a new law because:

1. Obama had practically the same law

2. He is within his constitutional rights

period. end of story. you libturds are simply allowing the most overturned court in america get your hopes up, only to have them dashed again.

(06-12-2017 04:15 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I'm not a constitutional scholar, but we should be able to do what we ******* want with our borders.

(06-12-2017 04:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He doesnt need a new law because:

1. Obama had practically the same law

2. He is within his constitutional rights

period. end of story. you libturds are simply allowing the most overturned court in america get your hopes up, only to have them dashed again.

Are you talking about the 4th circuit or the 9th circuit? Both ruled against the WH.

If he wants outright bans against all people of a country, I think he should work with the legislative branch to write a new law.

(06-12-2017 02:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...2acba07de3

Quote:Unlike other courts in the past, the three judges on the 9th Circuit did not dwell on Trump’s public comments, nor did they declare the president had run afoul of the constitution because his intent was to discriminate. Instead, they ruled that Trump’s travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal, and that violated immigration law.

They offered no opinion on whether the ban was constitutional.

“There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate, and no finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be harm to our national interests,” the judges wrote. “These identified reasons do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries would be harmful to our national interests.”

I think the quote there is important.

I don't agree that a ban is even necessary, when we can just vet every single person who wishes to travel to the US and reject them if they fail to provide sufficient information/contacts to vouch for them. If a wealthy businessman/government official from Sudan wants to drop $100k in NYC over a weekend, that has nothing to do with terrorism and they should be allowed to do that.

That's the problem......we can't vet every single person who wants to enter the country from the banned countries because there's no central database available to verify that they are who they say they are. We have to rely on the information provided by the home country to confirm that Abdul Mohammad is not actually ISIS bomb maker Sharif bin Goatpokin.

(06-12-2017 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 04:05 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  What if a law were created saying it was legal?

Quote:Sometimes, what people think they want is the least important factor in a situation.

Then please, remember this the next time you're tempted to yell "muh democracy"... I actually agree with you here which is why I favor a constitutionally bound and limited federal republic and not powerful central democracy.

If it were legal, then it wouldn't be against the law. That's the line, for me.

Legal and morally acceptable are not the same thing, not by a country mile. The line for me, and our founders, was that something does not infringe on a god given (innate) inalienable right.

Should the government pass such a law it is incumbent on us as citizens to right the wrong.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now the times in our history where we have failed to uphold this are sheameful, even when they were "legal".

Reading the opinion, it seems that if Trump didn't tweet about this, he would have won.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-13-2017 05:43 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Reading the opinion, it seems that if Trump didn't tweet about this, he would have won.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

Which sets up the easiest overturn in SCOTUS history.

Trump is good.

OBAMACARE IS NOT A TAX

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2017 05:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That's the problem......we can't vet every single person who wants to enter the country from the banned countries because there's no central database available to verify that they are who they say they are. We have to rely on the information provided by the home country to confirm that Abdul Mohammad is not actually ISIS bomb maker Sharif bin Goatpokin.

Heard this "excuse" time and again, and I don't buy it for a second. We're the US, not Latvia. We should have our own database that has more information than every other country combined.

More over, let the burden of proof rest upon whomever wishes to travel here, to prove that they are who they say they are. And you need to provide contacts to vouch for you, as well. That should be more than sufficient. If they don't provide ample information, then reject the request. Simple as that.

(06-12-2017 05:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Then please, remember this the next time you're tempted to yell "muh democracy"... I actually agree with you here which is why I favor a constitutionally bound and limited federal republic and not powerful central democracy.

Sure, I don't believe in mob rule, if that's what you're getting at.

(06-12-2017 05:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Legal and morally acceptable are not the same thing, not by a country mile. The line for me, and our founders, was that something does not infringe on a god given (innate) inalienable right.

Should the government pass such a law it is incumbent on us as citizens to right the wrong.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now the times in our history where we have failed to uphold this are sheameful, even when they were "legal".

I wasn't talking about in general ("the line for me is if there's a law ..."), I was talking specifically about if a travel ban should be legal.

What you quoted is so general and non-specific, that it truly could be used by both sides to justify their side of the argument on almost any argument.

(06-13-2017 05:43 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Reading the opinion, it seems that if Trump didn't tweet about this, he would have won.

Might be true of the 4th circuit (Maryland's case) ruling, but not the 9th circuit's (Hawaii's case) ruling. The 9th have a very simple, narrow opinion that the WH does not have the authority to do it this way.

(06-13-2017 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 05:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That's the problem......we can't vet every single person who wants to enter the country from the banned countries because there's no central database available to verify that they are who they say they are. We have to rely on the information provided by the home country to confirm that Abdul Mohammad is not actually ISIS bomb maker Sharif bin Goatpokin.

Heard this "excuse" time and again, and I don't buy it for a second. We're the US, not Latvia. We should have our own database that has more information than every other country combined.

More over, let the burden of proof rest upon whomever wishes to travel here, to prove that they are who they say they are. And you need to provide contacts to vouch for you, as well. That should be more than sufficient. If they don't provide ample information, then reject the request. Simple as that.

How does the US build such a database? It would take some time to gather all that intel and put it into a workable database. Lots of spying too. Do you want to volunteer to walk through the desert in Syria and ask the AK47 toting ISIS members for their name, age, place of birth, mother and father's name, and occupation?

How do you verify what Ali Baba from 34.580687, 40.011009 is accurate? He doesn't have a birth certificate, is self-employed, was orphaned, and doesn't know his age?

(06-13-2017 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 05:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Legal and morally acceptable are not the same thing, not by a country mile. The line for me, and our founders, was that something does not infringe on a god given (innate) inalienable right.

Should the government pass such a law it is incumbent on us as citizens to right the wrong.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now the times in our history where we have failed to uphold this are sheameful, even when they were "legal".

I wasn't talking about in general ("the line for me is if there's a law ..."), I was talking specifically about if a travel ban should be legal.

It was legal when Obama did it. Did the law change? Did the courts demand he cite precedent for his actions?

(06-13-2017 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 05:43 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Reading the opinion, it seems that if Trump didn't tweet about this, he would have won.

Might be true of the 4th circuit (Maryland's case) ruling, but not the 9th circuit's (Hawaii's case) ruling. The 9th have a very simple, narrow opinion that the WH does not have the authority to do it this way.

Section 1182(f) of the FEderal Immigration Law “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

(06-12-2017 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it were legal, then it wouldn't be against the law. That's the line, for me.

Point is, go through the proper methods, that are established and have been for some time, to have the law changed and/or make a new law.

Agree... and until the SCOTUS rules (or decides not to), then it's not 'the law'.

Obama was 100% convinced that Heller would be upheld... no such luck. There were 2 others as I recall.

The court it was originally brought in leans hard left... and it was brought there with intent. The 'appeals' court for that court (really the only place you CAN turn to) similarly leans left (almost embarrassingly so). No surprise, they agreed.

The SCOTUS does NOT lean left.

THAT is the proscribed process... and if the SCOTUS agrees with the 9th, THEN you can say it's 'the law' and we need to go to Congress to change it. Until then, you've simply been given the left's side of the argument.

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How does the US build such a database? It would take some time to gather all that intel and put it into a workable database. Lots of spying too. Do you want to volunteer to walk through the desert in Syria and ask the AK47 toting ISIS members for their name, age, place of birth, mother and father's name, and occupation?

The CIA does it. We should have a massive database, already, frankly.

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How do you verify what Ali Baba from 34.580687, 40.011009 is accurate? He doesn't have a birth certificate, is self-employed, was orphaned, and doesn't know his age?

If the information provided by the prospective traveler is insufficient, then you reject the request.

(06-13-2017 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It was legal when Obama did it. Did the law change? Did the courts demand he cite precedent for his actions?

If I had a nickel for every time someone on this board said something to the effect of "But [previous president] did something I perceive as similar, so that justifies what the current president has done!" then I could pay for the entire country's healthcare!

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Section 1182(f) of the FEderal Immigration Law “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

The 9th circuit said:

Quote:There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate, and no finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be harm to our national interests,” the panel noted. “These identified reasons do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries would be harmful to our national interests.

Take it up with them.

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Agree... and until the SCOTUS rules (or decides not to), then it's not 'the law'.

Obama was 100% convinced that Heller would be upheld... no such luck. There were 2 others as I recall.

The court it was originally brought in leans hard left... and it was brought there with intent. The 'appeals' court for that court (really the only place you CAN turn to) similarly leans left (almost embarrassingly so). No surprise, they agreed.

The SCOTUS does NOT lean left.

THAT is the proscribed process... and if the SCOTUS agrees with the 9th, THEN you can say it's 'the law' and we need to go to Congress to change it. Until then, you've simply been given the left's side of the argument.

You are exactly correct, of course.

It is upon the SCOTUS, if it decided to hear the case, to decide.

(06-13-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How does the US build such a database? It would take some time to gather all that intel and put it into a workable database. Lots of spying too. Do you want to volunteer to walk through the desert in Syria and ask the AK47 toting ISIS members for their name, age, place of birth, mother and father's name, and occupation?

The CIA does it. We should have a massive database, already, frankly.

You need to learn what the CIA does.

(06-13-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How do you verify what Ali Baba from 34.580687, 40.011009 is accurate? He doesn't have a birth certificate, is self-employed, was orphaned, and doesn't know his age?

If the information provided by the prospective traveler is insufficient, then you reject the request.

What are you going to compare it to?

(06-13-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It was legal when Obama did it. Did the law change? Did the courts demand he cite precedent for his actions?

If I had a nickel for every time someone on this board said something to the effect of "But [previous president] did something I perceive as similar, so that justifies what the current president has done!" then I could pay for the entire country's healthcare!

No you couldn't, you couldn't even pay for you own on a individual plan.

(06-13-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Section 1182(f) of the FEderal Immigration Law “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

The 9th circuit said:

Quote:There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate, and no finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be harm to our national interests,” the panel noted. “These identified reasons do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries would be harmful to our national interests.

Take it up with them.

I don't have to. The SC will.

If the SCOTUS does not overturn this?...We have a giant problem on our hands. This is a slam dunk.

(06-13-2017 11:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You need to learn what the CIA does.

I'm not seeing a counter-argument here, only a deflection.

(06-13-2017 11:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  What are you going to compare it to?

As I've said, the prospective travelers should provide contacts to vouch for themselves. Plus whatever intelligence the US has, or any other allies have.

If the information turns out to be insufficient, the fail-safe default is to reject the application. <--- this never doesn't work, so I don't see how you have an argument

(06-13-2017 11:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  No you couldn't, you couldn't even pay for you own on a individual plan.

Considering how often it happens, I think I could pay for quite a bit!

(06-13-2017 11:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't have to. The SC will.

If they decide to hear the case.

(06-13-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 10:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  How does the US build such a database? It would take some time to gather all that intel and put it into a workable database. Lots of spying too. Do you want to volunteer to walk through the desert in Syria and ask the AK47 toting ISIS members for their name, age, place of birth, mother and father's name, and occupation?

The CIA does it. We should have a massive database, already, frankly.

The CIA doesn't "do this". The CIA has been incapable of "doing this" for decades, going back to when Jimmy Carter gutted the agency and crippled our human intelligence assets.

(06-13-2017 12:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The CIA doesn't "do this". The CIA has been incapable of "doing this" for decades, going back to when Jimmy Carter gutted the agency and crippled our human intelligence assets.

Then fund the CIA better, so that a better database can be compiled.

I'll sign on for that, over a complete ban.

(06-13-2017 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 12:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The CIA doesn't "do this". The CIA has been incapable of "doing this" for decades, going back to when Jimmy Carter gutted the agency and crippled our human intelligence assets.

Then fund the CIA better, so that a better database can be compiled.

I'll sign on for that, over a complete ban.

LOL

Yeah you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.

If it were just a matter of funding we would have already done it.

(06-13-2017 12:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If it were just a matter of funding we would have already done it.

Then why did you present it that way?