Immigration Ban

mrandyk said:
Moiraine said:
Rusty Shackleford said:
QMany said:
BigRedBuster said:
So...we are 60 days into what was supposed to be a 90 day ban. So...if my math is correct, we should only have 30 days left for Trump to figure out whatever he thought he needed to figure out.
Click to expand...
Which is going to be another glorious round of questioning if Trump appeals. "If this 90-day ban was necessary, what have you been doing the last 90 days and what information have you gained?"
Click to expand...
90 days that we didnt get attacked by terrorists. ill take that.
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/28/521805165/white-supremacist-charged-with-terrorism-over-murder-of-black-man
Click to expand...
What's the Republican response to this one? Fake news, or ignore it entirely?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing for the kind of "Republican" who believes that tripe about 90 days free of terrorist attacks, who are not dissimilar to the Westboro Baptists claiming they are "Christian," that attack wouldn't count as a terrorist attack against "us."

Heavy use of air quotes there so everyone knows I'm not accusing real Republicans or Christians of that nonsense.

 
It's strange, too, that the truly low number of terrorist attacks, or the numerous 90 (and plus) day periods that previously went by without one still summed up to a "weak and feckless administration" that is "soft on terrorism".

 
TGHusker said:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANCTUARY_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-25-16-15-56

A judge has stalled Trumps EO on sanctuary cities. His immigration fight is going no where -

Sanctuary cities - tied up in court

Boarder Wall - resistance in congress

Ban on individuals from certain ME countries. - tied up in court
Click to expand...
On sanctuary cities - the judge said they can cut Justice department funding if Trump wants, but not funding apportioned by congress. Which makes sense, what with the constitution giving congress the power of the purse and all.
On the Muslim ban - I don't understand why this is still around. We obviously didn't need it for those 90 days, why would we need it now at all?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
TGHusker said:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANCTUARY_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-25-16-15-56

A judge has stalled Trumps EO on sanctuary cities. His immigration fight is going no where -

Sanctuary cities - tied up in court

Boarder Wall - resistance in congress

Ban on individuals from certain ME countries. - tied up in court
Click to expand...
On sanctuary cities - the judge said they can cut Justice department funding if Trump wants, but not funding apportioned by congress. Which makes sense, what with the constitution giving congress the power of the purse and all.
On the Muslim ban - I don't understand why this is still around. We obviously didn't need it for those 90 days, why would we need it now at all?
Click to expand...
Because Trump can't lose. He can't be seen as a loser. He also can't stand being questioned, period. It would destroy his psyche.

The reason they struck down the sanctuary city thing boiled in large part down to the court saying Trump can't threaten to withhold general funding not related to immigration simply because he doesn't like the immigration policies chosen by different jurisdictions.

Ironically, there's precedent - Obama threatened to withhold funding from states that didn't expand Medicaid. It was found unconstitutional.

Really shows the stark contrast between the priorities of the two men.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That general funding is approved by congress. The judge is saying that the constitution doesn't give the president the power to delegate federal funds, only congress can do that. It really has nothing to do with what the funding is related to.

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” Orrick wrote.

Now, the AG can with hold Justices department funding if he so chooses, but he's already said most cities don't meet their strict definiton of a snactuary city. So this is all just posturing for their base.

 
This was the line of the decision I was referring to. Perhaps I am interpreting wrong?

Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought he said any "ban" was temporary and they needed 120 days to review the vetting process. We are at 100 days since taking office. So, is it safe to assume we only have 20 more days to be talking about the ban?

 
i can believe it...as much as i don't want to.

a3bef940734e47309562d21b9bc6e474.png


 
Back
Top