- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Appeals Court Rejects Request to Immediately Restore Travel Ban
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:48 am to Tigereye10005
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:48 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
The law from the case you cited is referring to congressional power, not executive orders from the President.
But here is my original post" What logical person would say that a country has no right to limit or ban immigration for any reason?"
And you came in with the BS that the universal legal community has concluded that we can't limit immigration. Now you are moving the goalpost and trying to walk back your original assertion.
1
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:50 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Conway, tried to float the "massacre" story to her base but was caught
I know you don't believe that - she obviously misspoke and I am disappointed she didn't recognize it as soon as it escaped her lips. It is conceivable that the relied on some sketchy briefing material.
It's also conceivable that she's fricking clueless. This is two times now that she's stuck her foot in her mouth in a huge way. Just because we had to listen to fricking bimbos like Marie Harf and Jen Psaki in the Obama administration doesn't mean Trump has to have one in the White House. Her fricking job is communications, for God's sake. Fire her arse and hire Laura Ingraham.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:56 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:Two?
This is two times now
What's the other?
As much as she has attended and shut down hostile interviews, two seems an infinitesimally small number. Nonetheless, I'm interested to hear what you claim to be the second.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:57 am to Revelator
quote:
But here is my original post" What logical person would say that a country has no right to limit or ban immigration for any reason?"
And my response was that the government cannot limit immigration for whatever reason it wants. There are limits to that power. I used *any* because I was attempting to respond to your post with the same wording. As I explained above, that's why I put asterisks around the word, and also why I later clarified the statement. I didn't mean to confuse anyone by the phrasing. And as I said above, sorry for the confusion.
Of course I recognize that the government has some power to limit immigration, but not for any reason it wants.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:58 am to Tigereye10005
And the "Free Palestine" signs and Palestinian flags are abundant at the protests against Trump.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:58 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
Of course I recognize that the government has some power to limit immigration, but not for any reason it wants.
Can you point to where in the constitution that foreigners have a right to immigrate here
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:58 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
There are limits to that power.
No, there isn't.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 8:59 am to Tigereye10005
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:00 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
but not for any reason it wants.
and your list of acceptable reasons?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:00 am to Tigereye10005
dp
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 9:01 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:04 am to Strannix
(no message)
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:05 am to Revelator
quote:dems make up roughly half the country. That's half the country with no logic.
What logical person would say that a country has no right to limit or ban immigration for any reason
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:06 am to goldennugget
quote:
Can you point to where in the constitution that foreigners have a right to immigrate here
There are many statutes and court rulings discussing the issue. If you can't even recognize that the government's power to regulate immigration is not literally unlimited, this conversation is useless.
Also, it's laughable that the same people who constantly complain about federal overreach are now arguing that the federal government has sweeping, broad reaching power.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Two?
What's the other?
Seriously??? "Alternative facts" ring a bell? Where the hell have you been the last two weeks.
The problem is that she ends up making herself the fricking story. 2 in 2 weeks is "infinitesimally small"? So are we going to have to listen to her corrections of herself in a weekly basis? She is in way the hell over her head. Ingraham would be 1,000 times better in that job...if she could be convinced to take it.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 9:09 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:09 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
There are many statutes and court rulings discussing the issue.
quote:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:15 am to NC_Tigah
For about the 20th time, that statute has been amended and restricted in multiple occasions. Please stop citing to it like it's the ultimate authority on immigration law.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:16 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
Also, it's laughable that the same people who constantly complain about federal overreach are now arguing that the federal government has sweeping, broad reaching power.
How is it laughable that the federal government would have powers to regulate federal issues?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:19 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
For about the 20th time, that statute has been amended and restricted in multiple occasions. Please stop citing to it like it's the ultimate authority on immigration law.
Has it now? Got the links to those multiple occasions?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:21 am to Jjdoc
Yes I do and I have provided them in this thread and in others. So read through the thread if you want links.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 9:24 am to a want
quote:
You mean like Bush appointed District judges?
Just because a judge was appointed by Bush, doesn't mean th judge was always a lefty. This judge was finagled into the judgeship by Patty Murray, a hard left wing Senator.
quote:
Robart’s appointment as a federal judge was championed by liberal Senators like Patty Murray, who used Senatorial custom allowing senators to veto Presidential appointments of trial judges to obtain the appointment of liberal trial judges like Robart in Washington State. An April 13, 2005 press release by Murray touts Robart’s appointment as the “bipartisan” result of using a state commission to select federal trial judges in Washington, whose appointment Bush then rubberstamped.
This Senatorial veto power, known as the “blue slip,” is an old tradition, dating back to at least 1917, that lets senators have a say on which trial judges are appointed to courts in their home state.
LINK
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News