Reminder, Trump has every legal right to ban travel from any nation he wishes

Reminder, Trump has every legal right to ban travel from any nation he wishes.

Other urls found in this thread:

abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5918376679014688763&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5235136558696880110&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

how can he argue that people who have travelled through yemen, iraq , syria, iran, sudan, somalia, lybia are detrimental to the interests of the united states

For the same reason that Obama banned travel from Iraq for 6 months; they are wartorn shitholes ripe with anti-american sentiments.

obama banned travel because there was intelligence suggesting that terrorists were going to try to use the refugee program to sneak members into the USA
then he strengthened the vetting process significantly

[citation needed]

Mfw Liberals want literal terrorists in the country because they want to use violence against political opponents but are too weak and feminized to actually fight.

Intelligence suggests the exact same for the refugees now. Additionally the 7 countries cited were from an Obama Administration program detailing these areas did not have adequate visa programs.

From the argument your posing there is plenty of just cause. Try again.

...

abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

haven't you been following the veto ban? it's not new information, man

He is. BUT he was too dumb to realize that referring to it as a religious ban on the campaign trail and even after he was sworn in.... AND giving preference to Syrian Christians makes it look like religious discrimination to the courts. He's not intelligent enough to play the political game. Because we all know it is a Muslim ban. If he could have been more subtle with his discrimination maybe we wouldn't be here.

So let that be a lesson Sup Forums. Trump does not have the temperament to hold political office and he will let you down again...and again... and again

we should be vetting Mexicans more, since they commit a ton of crime here
and, considering the nationalities of people who have killed americans before, I don't think iraqis and iranians are a concern
tunisians, egyptians, saudis, emiratis

obama did not ban travel from countries. he just had strict vetting, which is still in place today.

>Bringing in immigrants harms both the people of the host nation and the immigrants coming in

Boy thats the most unfounded, generalized statement. I'd love to see any sort of evidence to back it up.

you would think the somali terror attacks and murders here would be enough

forget the actual shithole country

Religious bans are legal as well. The constitution only applies to citizens and the OP pic says "any class".

i agree, it just harms the host nation

>begun, the meme war has

b-but muh rapefugees

>get BTFO last minute in the election
>get BTFO last minute during the superb owl
>get BTFO last minute by the electric fence when confirming Devos

And now the (th circuit will get BTFO last second by the SCOTUS

He doesn't need to argue jack shit. He is within his legal authority as chief executive. Exercising power granted by the legislature.

According to what is written there, he doesn't have to. He just has to deem it himself.

do you know how frequently the obama administration was sued after he made executive actions?
now that trump made one it's immediately incapable of being argued in court?

>daily reminder leftism is all about looking in the past and taking revenge against white males for their previous actions rather than trying to fix society

I'm looking a month back and exposing hypocrisy

didn't know lebanese people posted on Sup Forums btw

It's just a common theme with you people, that's all.
>X amount of time in the past white males did this wrong thing
>that's why it's okay for us to do it now

This is not copy pasta.. Just a message i feel is necessary to get out.

Some of us just want basic rights to live and function. That does not mean we are nazis or niggers or the left or rednecks. Posted on this site daily is very clear evidence that we as serious whites dont have those rights. I have been thrown under the bus by people who think im a redneck. These people are full of ideas, arrogant and full of blind ambition. They never question themselves, yet it is obvious that their actions are the only factor which prevents this immediate initiative and action within the other people. It is obvious that these people are attached to their position in society and are saying what they are saying for no other reason. They are literally preventing the mentality of initiative which will directly solve the problems because they are fearful, selfish, ignorant and spineless. They blame it on others who are not like that and claim that it cannot be done like that as if some reckless immediate action would occur and more careful paced action is necessary. Just because someone has this immediate initiative does not mean they are going to do something reckless right now. This initiative will operate in the person and create the most efficient and intelligent action over time. These people are the ones who are committing this reckless action they speak of throwing everyone else under the bus just because they dont understand their own fear, like cucks. The way i see it, these people are the only ones holding back any kind of healthy change, with or without realizing it, all while claiming the hard work and initiative of others. Once again, just because someone has this discontent and initiative does not mean they are stupid, careless or reckless in a situation where those people claim to be playing a waiting game. We seriously need to sort this problem out. It can be something as minor as this which holds back Trumps EOs in a time like this..

The best outcome here is actually just to ignore the courts for exactly this reason. Stalling and waiting for Gorsuch to break the tie up at the SC would be a mistake.

Their illegitimate power here needs to be called out and broken.

I didn't say it's incapable of being argued in court. You could argue any thing in court. It's just wrong. The text is so clear an idiot can understand.

That judge is an activist with his injunction. He is abrogating the executive power of the united states and setting up the court as a supra-legislative power. It's an erosion of our constitution.

Whether it was in Obama's power to eject his orders is something else. Maybe he was within his rights. But I did notice that he was more likely subverting law in doing so. Like taking authority away from ICE needed to exicute the law and etc.

okay so obama wrote that transgender bathroom bill
the bible belt went completely apeshit, even though it only applies to government buildings
there was rampant bathroom policing, stores were boycotted for enacting their own policies, a bunch of states sued the government or strengthened their own discrimination laws
this shit is still an issue

how is trump's veto ban different?

8 U.S.C. ยง 1182(f)
"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."
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Landon v. Plasencia, 459 US 21 - Supreme Court 1982
"This Court has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative."
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5918376679014688763&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 US 537 - Supreme Court 1950
"At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government." ... "Thus the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General."
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5235136558696880110&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Eject should be enact.

that US code is in place to let us close the borders after another pearl harbor / 9/11
not just willy nilly, man

While they may or may not be both equally incorrect legally (I really dont give a shit about that), one is based on a document that built the foundation of your country, the other is about whether boys who wear dresses should be able to pee in the cubicle next to your daughter.

Frankly I was expecting the border to be shut down indefinitely on 9/11. It should have and should have stayed that way until the Global Jihad was defeated.

/thread

I don't usually say this but if you disagree with this user's analysis you are either uneducated on the subject or delusional.

t.lawyer

Where does it say "after a national tragedy"? Pretty sure it says whenever the president fucking wants. Is it too hard to read with Tyrone pounding your face or something?

Prove it.

Yuuup, no foreigner has any right to our rights. No matter how much you panzy ass liberals think they should it simply isnt a truth.

Well someone got fuckin rekt

Legal=/= constitutional

Jim Crow was legal one until the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional

And ISIS has LITERALLY put it in their monthly, publicly available, newletter / magazine (Dabiq) that their followers should use the refugee program to get into western countrys and commit acts of terror.

Aliens do not have a right to the United States. Aliens are not protected under the constitution.

WRONG.

The United States Code is a consolidation of PERMANENT LAWS of the United States government.

Nowhere in the wording did it say or imply that a national tragedy, attack or even danger must take place, for the president to issue a freeze of immigration from a group. He doesn't even need to argue it.

The Muslim ban detained us citizens and legal immigrants from those countries
That is unconstitutional and discriminatory

the INA of 1965 does not provide an exemption for that act.

This, this and this again.

>Reminder, Trump has every legal right to ban travel from any nation he wishes.
except
>would be detrimental to the interests of the United States

And there's no proof this is the case. None of our terrorist attacks since 9-11 have been done by immigrants from the banned countries.

>Lawyer
I got a question
How much loopholes do we have to go through to end the 1965 Immigration Act?

Traitors before enemies, those so called judges should get death.

If you are seriously this fucking stupid, unironically put the barrel of a loaded gun in your mouth and pull the trigger

Homeland Security Act makes that obsolete

If you're aren't red pill on Islam, please do research. I agree that the ban is weak, it needs to be tougher for the safety of white Americans.

yes but how does having unproductive parasites stealing from the public coffers actually harm us???

He should just say Fuck It and ban immigration from everywhere entirely. Nobody from anywhere. Fuck you.

Yes yes, muslims suck, but you're not doing anything just banning the ones who're trying to become good citizens and ignoring the rich assholes who want to rape women and get away with it due to political connections.

Two reasons why it failed: Precedent and Judicial-Discretion.

He literally does not need a reason. But there are plenty.

>Muslims
>Good citizens
" rich assholes" are the ones shoving down false song of immigration down our throats.

>then he strengthened the vetting process significantly
And Trump decided it was not enough, thus necessitating a 90-day stay on travel from these high-risk areas to enact more thorough vetting procedures
>well I don't agree
Your opinion, and the opinion of these judges, is completely irrelevant according to the law.

the war on terror never ended dumb asses

...

yeah that was a problem with the implementation, which was criticized by all and quickly rectified

the judiciary has zero authority here. It has totally over-stepped its boundaries.

The issue arose with permenate residence that are not citizens.

9th circuit is claiming they are protected by the 5th amendment thus superseding his edict

LOL go back to 8th grade civics fuckface

That's racist

>obama passes tons of illegal stuff including obama care
>nobody bats an eye because it would be racist to try to usurp an executive order
>trump does the same thing
>everybody and their grandma thinks they can tell him no
not gonna happen folks

Obama never banned iraqs, just jacked up procedures to slow influx.

So when is SCOTUS going to hear this shit? Are we seriously going to have to wait months for their decision and meanwhile thousands of immigrants are pouring into the country?

right
the most effective way to get a terrorist attack off the ground is a lone wolf attack
ISIS isn't shaking in their boots because trump tried to enact a veto ban; in fact, they were hoping on it

but closing the borders because of steve bannon's skepticism is the kind of thing that gets our country in a lot of trouble; do we need UN sanctions against us?

the united states had open borders up until about 100 years ago

>So when is SCOTUS going to hear this shit? Are we seriously going to have to wait months for their decision and meanwhile thousands of immigrants are pouring into the country?
Here is the other thing.....As we saw last night, they will be deporting people......So even if they CAN come in, they could literally be waiting right there with a van to take them away.

That is my interpretation of it. If they didn't stop that mexican woman last night, they certainly won't stop future deports.

No papers, no citizenship means that you are illegal, irrelevant of perception of law. It is criminal....Illegal immigrant/refugee etc. There is a right and wrong way to do this, and just appealing something that you know you have no rights to appeal is an overstepping of your place in government.

Nice job, shill.

None of the countries Trump banned are even in the top 5 highest Muslim population. It's not a fucking Muslim ban you fucking brainwashed, propaganda regurgitating moron.

5thPBP

this isn't exactly about illegal immigration
considering the wording of the executive order, it's a straight-up muslim ban
if a civil war broke out in, fuck it, myanmar or kosovo, and we started taking in refugees, they'd be god damn sure to change the wording so that their muslims don't come here

I think it's all wrong, by the way; let em come in, as long as they get through the vetting

The ones coming in across the border can't be vetted. And the visa holders are being vetted.

So the judicial branch controls immigration policy now?

He has the right to say "no niggers from Africa" and enforce it under the law. Those judges are fucked.

well the ones coming across the border are vetted, man; the ones who go about the legal path, that is
and yeah if they come illegally and live in colonias and keep a super low profile, they're obviously not interested in going about the legal path to citizenship but they're also not much of a threat either
there were colonias in my town; they basically sold used toold at the flea market, did odd jobs at trailer parks, mowed lawns, worked off the books for farmers and kept a row of fruit in exhange
nothing crazy

We have to wait till gorsuch gets onto the Supreme Court. Then the ban will be upheld (5-4) and the left will have no other way of stopping it. If it gets pushed through before that, the court will tie (4-4) and the ruling of the (((9th circuit court of appeals))) would be upheld

considering his comments so far, I bet he's gonna back out

I doubt it, he's a constitutionalist, and the constitution clearly grants trump the power to deny immigration as he sees fit (see pic in OP)

but he wasn't terribly happy with trump's comments against an independent judiciary
just because he was nominated by trump doesn't mean he has to be consistently loyal
Obama actually wanted the governor of Nevada, a republican, to be his scotus nominee, but the guy backed out

Stop accepting refugees

don't we have to because of the 1951 refugee convention

If he votes against the ban he is breaking the law. Regardless of trump opinions or not.

I don't know.
But honestly, since when are we subject to UN laws?

when we agreed to them =)

You dumb fucks are ignoring the fact that Congress limited the power they gave the president in law OP posted later in the early 60s, saying he cant discriminate by nationality, race or sex.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

lol is that vargs beard