- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here's Jeff Sessions asking Sally Yates if she would say no to the President
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:00 am to Bjorn Cyborg
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:00 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Non-citizens on U.S. soil have limited rights. Visa holders have limited rights. Immigrants and refugees in foreign countries who have not been given Visas have ZERO rights under our constitution. They are non-entities who may as well not even exist.
My problem with this situation is with the circumstance where the non-citizens had valid Visas and were already on American soil.
0
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:01 am to Draconian Sanctions
Why is it unconstitutional?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:03 am to Draconian Sanctions
"Goose shite is slick"
Draconian Sanctions:
"No,no,no,no,no!!!!!
It's not true, it's not true!!!!!"
Draconian Sanctions:
"No,no,no,no,no!!!!!
It's not true, it's not true!!!!!"
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:03 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Including the right to immigrate?
That is utterly ridiculous. Where do you draw the line? Regardless of the president or policy, ALL refugees are not allowed. So, there is either a right or there is not. Some are allowed and some are not.
I haven't been following along w/ this discussion--like I said I only jumped in to correct that other guy a/b noncitizen rights--so I didn't know we were talking a/b a "right" to immigrate (doesn't exist). I THINK people here are contesting the ban on the grounds that it applies an improper religious test for admission to the US? Not sure.
Anyways, I see no reason why we can't allow 100k or so refugees a year to a country of app 320m. The vetting process is already extremely difficult, and the stated policy reason for denying entry (safety) isn't supported by the facts. Also, we're currently parties to treaties that obligate us to accept refugees (treaties we wrote).
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:05 am to Hugo Stiglitz
Only the faraway wizards of oz at Harvard can read and understand the constitution. We plebes cant possibly interpret it...
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:08 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:People who haven't been granted visas and aren't in the United States have no rights, that's true. But the executive order overreached in an unconstitutional way by banning those who have visas and green cards (on a "case-by-case basis" apparently, though that's actually still unclear to me). People with green cards and valid visas were turned away after they landed in the US.
Non-citizens on U.S. soil have limited rights. Visa holders have limited rights. Immigrants and refugees in foreign countries who have not been given Visas have ZERO rights under our constitution. They are non-entities who may as well not even exist.
The president can ban "any class" of immigrant from entering the U.S. for any reason.
Even if it were deemed illegal based on religion, that's not what this is and it can't be proven that's what this is. Giuliani has no role in the admin and anything he says is just hearsay anyway. Anything said during the campaign has no standing currently.
This chick was acting in a purely partisan way. It's completely indefensible.
I think there's also an argument for a violation of the first amendment on basis of the establishment clause, but that's a more elaborate argument that I don't care to get into right now.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 10:10 am
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:14 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Because it was a de facto Muslim ban. Guiliani and Trump running their mouth about it will be key evidence against it.
134 million out of 1.7 billion is a ban huh?
If Gruber can get away with his Obamacare confession - I am not worried about Guiliani.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:22 am to WheelRoute
quote:
Anyways, I see no reason why we can't allow 100k or so refugees a year to a country of app 320m. The vetting process is already extremely difficult, and the stated policy reason for denying entry (safety) isn't supported by the facts. Also, we're currently parties to treaties that obligate us to accept refugees (treaties we wrote).
And that is a very valid argument -- on humanitarian grounds. It has no legal standing.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:22 am to Hugo Stiglitz
She knows she has no future there as she is an Obama appointee, so she knew she had nothing to lose & was simply grandstanding for political reasons. If she did in fact not defend the Federal Govt in any of the lawsuits, the Fed. Govt would lose every suit by default. Is that good for the country?
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:32 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
People with green cards and valid visas were turned away after they landed in the US.
Oh, were they? Turned away? Because that's a lie. They were detained and eventually let through. More lies and exaggeration from the left.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:34 am to WheelRoute
quote:
Anyways, I see no reason why we can't allow 100k or so refugees a year to a country of app 320m.
Sure, you can start by welcoming them into your home then.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:36 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
if he presented her a request that was improper or unconstitutional
Well, there you go. She did not do that.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:37 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Please explain to me how this Executive Order is unconstitutional?
At a minimum, it violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause. Also seems to violate the 1968 INA.
So, lots of ways. Hence why the ACLU hasn't lost in court yet opposing it.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:40 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
People with green cards and valid visas were turned away after they landed in the US.
i don't know if they have many constitutional protections if not on US soil. they probably have some DP (which the law granted them. they can still object and appeal this to courts with all those procedures)
quote:
I think there's also an argument for a violation of the first amendment on basis of the establishment clause, but that's a more elaborate argument that I don't care to get into right now.
that would make any targeted immigration law invalid, so i doubt that works at all
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:43 am to BamaAtl
quote:
it violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause,
how and how?
quote:
and the Due Process Clause.
they still have procedural due process (as seen by the district court rulings for a simple example)
quote:
Also seems to violate the 1968 INA.
that's not a constitutional argument. that's a statutory argument
quote:
Hence why the ACLU hasn't lost in court yet opposing it.
they haven't "lost" but they haven't really "won" either. they used smart forum selection and a low legal threshhold to get publicity
these district court injunctions are meaningless in the larger argument about constitutionality
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:43 am to BamaAtl
quote:
At a minimum, it violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause. Also seems to violate the 1968 INA.
quote:
So, lots of ways. Hence why the ACLU hasn't lost in court yet opposing it.
The merits haven't been argued or ruled upon. They have obtained emergency stays in cherry-picked venues.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how and how?
Gives exceptions for one religion over another.
quote:
they still have procedural due process (as seen by the district court rulings for a simple example)
Not based on their own reports - being forced to sign away your visa under threat of being banned for 5 years is hardly procedural due process.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:48 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Gives exceptions for one religion over another.
theoretically possible, but even if this is true, that single passage will be struck and the rest of the EO will remain
quote:
being forced to sign away your visa under threat of being banned for 5 years is hardly procedural due process.
you don't understand what procedural due process is, then. they still have the right to challenge this via court, as many have done
LEO strong-arming people into bad deals isn't unconstitutional. you ee it in the WOD every day
Posted on 1/31/17 at 10:51 am to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
And that is a very valid argument -- on humanitarian grounds. It has no legal standing.
Well, a treaty is a legal agreement but that's an argument for another time.
quote:
Sure, you can start by welcoming them into your home then.
I have zero problem with refugees being resettled near me. Better yet, encourage them to open up a take out place on the corner. Could use some more variety in my neighborhood.
Posted on 1/31/17 at 11:15 am to WheelRoute
quote:
I have zero problem with refugees being resettled near me. Better yet, encourage them to open up a take out place on the corner. Could use some more variety in my neighborhood
You misunderstood. In your HOME. I'm sure there are a couple of 18-35 year old male refugees that can sleep on your couch or air mattress. Let them into your home. Foot the bill for their food and clothes. You do that and then get back to us on here.
This post was edited on 1/31/17 at 11:17 am
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News