General US Politics

[Shoblongoo]

45 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Both the Bush and Obama administrations enforced illegal border crossers rather harshly. Literally the only difference between then and now is the judicial step - and to boot, that practically means they spend 1-2 more days in jail than during the Obama admin due to time served, and are then thrown out the same way. All it accomplishes is clogging up the judiciary by an insane amount and a mountain of heinous shit.

Oh and by the way, asylum seekers have been getting turned away since the Obama admin at least, even the clear cut cases that would obviously get asylum if they were to be allowed to submit the request. And this has gotten way worse with the Trump admin.

Yeah--thats not true. 

Obama directed the Justice Department to exercise discretion in enforcing the illegal entry laws--prioritizing the targeting of persons suspected to have committed additional offenses like robbery or drug trafficking or sexual assault--rather than a "zero tolerance" policy of rounding everyone up indiscriminately and treating them all as the worst kind of criminal offenders.

You had detention and deportation under Obama. But you also had good faith efforts being made to sort out bone-fide criminal elements from persons more deserving of compassion and leniency. Pursuant to a general recognition that by-and-large these aren't bad or dangerous people; they're families fleeing abhorrent living conditions and trying to make better lives for themselves. 

You never had the broad-based dehumanization of entire populations as "invades" and "infestations" and "animals" under Obama, or the attitudes and policies and justifications born from that school of thought.

You also only had internment of minors in seperate detention centers under Obama if they crossed the border without an adult present, and were detained with no identifiable legal guardian to care for them upon their release.

Trump altered the policy to:

1)  Disallow needs of accompanying minors as a factor-to-be-considered when deciding whether to detain or release their accompanying adults. 

2) Deem every minor who crossed the border with a subsequently detained adult (i.e. all of them, under zero tolerance) "unaccompanied," for the purposes of deciding the legality of their internment.

3) Reclassify detention centers as "refugee camps," to evade court bans on the indefinite detention of children.

...All things that Bush and Obama never did... 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Captain Karnage]

@Shoblongoo I din't realize that deportation and execution were the same thing!

not to mention that a lot of those pictures that have been shared are from 2014 under the Obama administration, those are also the processing centers, where they are held until the proper paperwork has been done. They're also separated by age/gender until they can figure out who's their family

seriously what's wrong with boarder enforcement? Not to mention a majority of these kids are crossing the boarder alone.

edit. I do want to see these kids reunited with their families, if they can find a way to I'm fine with it

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Captain Karnage

[Tryhard]

Border enforcement would be fine (and a fence is already present) if there was some sort of evidence that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit a crime. The fact is the absolute opposite, that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes compared to the general US population.

What's the point of antagonising illegal immigrants? Essentially, what are you concerned about? The fact that they committed a misdemeanour? When there's so many other stupid laws, it is harsh to condemn any to deportation when they aren't criminals (and to make it clear, if they are found guilty of a crime, I'm not opposed to deportation as a punishment). That illegals are guilty of mass crime? As above, this is not true. That illegals take "jobs" that 'real Americans' can be working? Most of the underpaid jobs are jobs that Americans in general do not want to be working anyway and so are given to those that would be considered "hard workers".  That illegals are a drain of resources? Besides the fact that you are likely a net drain for society unless you're banking $100K+ annually yourself, The Congressional Budget Office itself reported in 2007 that "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to them" but "in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." That the US is being overflowed with illegal immigrants currently right now? Considering there is a net loss of undocumented workers back to Mexico right now, this is not the case.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/apr/26/ron-kind/yes-experiencing-net-outflow-illegal-undocumented-/

Of course, if shortsightedness wasn't the way things were, scapegoating illegal immigrants wouldn't be exploited by those who could really stand to make everyone's livelihood better - politicans and lobbyists who spend an absurd amount of money to point fingers elsewhere. Businesses (including Trump, while we're here, who has employed undocumented workers) consider illegal immigrants as cheap labour, and this isn't a good thing for them either. Immigration reform would be needed in the US, but not in the way building a fucking wall would solve things - consider making changes to how "legal" immigration is handled. 

Edit: And that's not even going into the differentiation between asylum seekers and such.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Edgelord

[Karimlan]

19 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

@Shoblongoo I din't realize that deportation and execution were the same thing!

Apparently, the language is obscured in a lot of cases.

Historically speaking, the Wannsee conference where a "complete solution to the Jewish question" was supposedly discussed (it was a lie: total control was given to the SS by Hermann Göring with every other office submitting to the will of the Squadron under Reinhard Heydrich), they masked the activities by using the term evacuation. Fast forward to a few more decades, and you have the term used by Serbs to rationalize all the crap that happened on the former Yugoslavia (ethnic cleansing).

So, yeah. Language can either expose truth, or obscure it.

[Shoblongoo]

57 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

 I din't realize that deportation and execution were the same thing!

Really???

Thats the standard you want to adopt--anything short of mass execution is acceptable?

57 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

not to mention that a lot of those pictures that have been shared are from 2014 under the Obama administration, those are also the processing centers, where they are held until the proper paperwork has been done.

See prior post as to why this is a departure from Obama era policy.

In fact; just to drive home how blatantly those saying this is mere continuation of Obama era policy are lying to you and how stupid and gullible they think you are:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/241668-113-republicans-back-lawsuit-against-obamas-immigration-actions

"113 Republicans back lawsuit against Obama's immigration actions." May 11, 2015

"Instead of setting enforcement priorities," they added, "it created a class-based program that establishes eligibility requirements that, if met, grant unlawful immigrants a renewable lawful presence in the United States and substantive benefits.

Texas and 25 other states have challenged the legality of the unilateral actions, arguing that the president overstepped his executive power with programs halting deportations and granting work permits to certain groups of illegal immigrants.

The brief was endorsed by 113 Republicans, including Sens. John Cornyn(Texas), the majority whip, and Ted Cruz (Texas), a 2016 presidential hopeful. In the House, the supporters include Reps. Trey Gowdy (S.C.); Tom Price (Ga.); Michael McCaul (Texas), head of the Homeland Security Committee; and Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the former head of the Judiciary panel."

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/politicians-and-industry-respond-to-obamas-immigration-announcement.html

"Among other reforms, Obama said he would temporarily defer deportation for almost 5 million undocumented workers if they submit to registration and a background check."

"Republican politicians decried President Barack Obama's immigrationreform plans as unconstitutional and ill-advised."

Marco Rubio said in a statement that "the right way to do it is to first bring illegal immigration under control by securing the borders and enforcing the laws, then modernizing our legal immigration system."
____________

^^^
Same lying shit-weasels now defending Trump Zero Tolerance as "...b-but its just the same thing Obama was doing. "

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
 

57 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

 Not to mention a majority of these kids are crossing the boarder alone, 

Yeah--that's also not true.

The source for this claim is the Trump Administration itself. As with most things, they are lying.

 

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:

seriously what's wrong with boarder enforcement? Not to mention a majority of these kids are crossing the boarder alone.

Nothing. You had it happening a few months ago before this "zero tolerance" policy was enacted and there was no need for any of this. Also, do yourself a favor and try not to use the words of Trump Staffers, Trump supporting Republicans and Fox News as a source. Most of the time, you are being lied to and they're counting on you to be stupid enough to believe their lies. The only pundit on Fox News that isn't outright lying and or perpetuating propaganda Trump look good is Shep Smith for whatever reason. There's also Andrew Napolitano debunking legal claims tossed around as well as flat out contradicting Trump even though Trump told him that he was considering him to be a Supreme Court Judge. Lastly, you have a guy that recently left Fox News calling them out on their propaganda

What's wrong is the way the immigration issue is being handled after the "zero tolerance" policy is in effect as well as Trump's approach to immigration which is basically pandering the racist Americans who have been convinced by Fox News and Republicans that illegal immigrants are the biggest source of crime when there's no evidence of that but there are studies underlining the positive impacts of refugees. Republicans won't tell you that because it goes against their narrative that they want to keep echoing so that the general populace is distracted when they attempt to do things that ALL AMERICANS do not want them to do, so they'll keep pushing the narrative as many times as they can because people are actually stupid enough to believe them and ignore facts such as Illegals in the workforce pay taxes but reap none of the benefits like Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc.

This narrative is what they're using to justify their war on immigration and in Trump's case, it is primarily actions to coerce democrats into putting more funding for that stupid fucking wall that anyone that isn't brainwashed by Fox News will tell you that it accomplishes nothing and a the majority of the American people do not support it. The policy is literally a tool for Trump to accumulate hostages to push for border wall funding.

There's much more that can be said but I will stop here. Given how you used Kirstjen Nielson's words to make a claim, I highly recommend that you start fact checking statements from the aforementioned sources of lies: Trump, Republicans who support Trump, Trump staffers, Fox News. Do enough of it and you will see how much the American people are being lied to. The Republican party of today and supporters like Fox News should probably have their voice in today's society removed until they start backing up their claims with facts and rejecting facts because they don't like them. Unfortunately, they do have a right to free speech, no matter how destructive it is over time.

Perfect metaphor of how Republicans deal with facts

Edited June 25, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Captain Karnage]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Really???

Thats the standard you want to adopt--anything short of mass execution is acceptable?

 

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

you were comparing deportations to executions

________

@Dr. Tarrasque i don't agree 100% with everything that's been said, nor have I said that illegals bring crime at the rate some have been saying

what makes my sources less reliable than yours

didn't Time magazine lie in their latest magazine

didn't CNN blackmail a guy over a meme he made that Trump tweeted out

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Captain Karnage

[The Geek]

29 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

 

what makes my sources less reliable than yours

didn't Time magazine lie in their latest magazine

didn't CNN blackmail a guy over a meme he made that Trump tweeted out

 

Because Fox News is an entertainment channel.  They are not legally allowed to classify themselves as news because they're so disconnected from the truth.

If CNN or Time report something that turns out to not be true they recall the story and own up to the mistake.  Because that's what honest reporters do.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:

 

@Dr. Tarrasque i don't agree 100% with everything that's been said, nor have I said that illegals bring crime at the rate some have been saying

what makes my sources less reliable than yours

didn't Time magazine lie in their latest magazine

didn't CNN blackmail a guy over a meme he made that Trump tweeted out

 

I didn't say you said that. I gave an answer to your question and provided some information you might want to see given how you brought up "Build the wall" in response to what to do. "Build the wall" is usually spouted by people who are ignorant of what's going on or the morons in the Trump cult.

Your sources are unreliable because the video you linked comes from a Trump staffer which practically have no credibility as well as the fact that this particular staff member denied that kids are being taken from their parents at the border.

As mentioned above, it is possible for journalists to report something  that turns out not true, that is natural and any journalist with integrity will own up to it. Fox News' own CEO says it's not in the business of news and you can dig up more interviews from that former analyst calling out his former employer for becoming the Propaganda machine for Trump. Most of their "news" programs are essentially talk shows with whatever pundits are rich and popular like Tomi Lahren who is basically Fox News' eye candy for angry white males in their 20s.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

Tellingly, persons who get their "information" from watching FOX are less informed than persons who watch no news at all:



...now why do you suppose that is???

2 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

you were comparing deportations to executions

...I am comparing Trump zero tolerance to other unjust operations of law, which persons of sound conscience and respect for human decency should find absolutely horrifying, rather than justified by a blanket rationale of "The law is the law. Law enforcement = [good]."

Don't tell me this is defensible because deportation is not the same as execution--defend this atrocity on its own merits or don't defend it at all.

Are you or are you not okay with separating young children from their families, locking them in cages, and holding them indefinitely in mass detention centers as punishment for the "crime" of migrating to our country? 

[Lord Raven]

3 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

what makes my sources less reliable than yours

didn't Time magazine lie in their latest magazine

didn't CNN blackmail a guy over a meme he made that Trump tweeted out

 

There's a difference between owning up to being wrong and what Fox News does. Fox News has been a cancer on our TVs for years, and the proof for this is actually indisputable.

CNN's issue is not the fact that they lie, it's the fact that they are in the business of sensationalism. Time's the same issue to a lesser extent. I can trust that they will tell me the facts correctly, I cannot necessarily trust their tone, rhetoric, or analysis.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I mentioned this one before but my problem with CNN and mainstream media in general is that they try to act neutral when they report something, trying a bit hard to not be for either party. Some of their anchors have improved a bit on this matter but ultimately the answer should be simple: Forget party, if there is a lie, say it's a lie, whether the source is Obama, Bush or Trump.

Secondly, if you don't like one particular source of news, that is fine, there's plenty others out there specially in the internet, they're still echoing the same facts about Trump and this is the biggest difference between Nixon era and Trump era: Fox News didn't exist in Nixon's era as an escape for supporters of a corrupt president to avoid hearing things they didn't like about their "leader sent by god". Today you have Trump being more blatantly corrupt than Nixon was in his time and his party and followers won't budge because they choose to ignore the facts and get their "news" from Fox News. Trump himself is guilty of this and goes as far as to act on a whim based on what he sees on "Fox and Friends". 

[Excellen Browning]

18 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You had detention and deportation under Obama. But you also had good faith efforts being made to sort out bone-fide criminal elements from persons more deserving of compassion and leniency. Pursuant to a general recognition that by-and-large these aren't bad or dangerous people; they're families fleeing abhorrent living conditions and trying to make better lives for themselves.
 

Actually, it's true. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/6/5971003/families-together-detention-separate-ice

[Karimlan]

2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I mentioned this one before but my problem with CNN and mainstream media in general is that they try to act neutral when they report something, trying a bit hard to not be for either party. Some of their anchors have improved a bit on this matter but ultimately the answer should be simple: Forget party, if there is a lie, say it's a lie, whether the source is Obama, Bush or Trump.

(emphasis mine)

This may exist in a perfect world. In this one, you have aphorisms like the following:

• "All the news that's fit to print." (New York Times IIRC)
• "We report. You decide." (Fox News)

They're cute and witty, to be sure, but neither really would accurately serve as a mirror for the intellect of their reading/viewing populace. As Christopher Hitchens had written in numerous ways before, "The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." We can tell how some people think by looking at where they get their news, though.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Karimlan

[Shoblongoo]

3 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Actually, it's true. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/6/5971003/families-together-detention-separate-ice

You are confused.

No one is saying Obama didn't run these detention centers or practice family separation--the difference is that Obama didn't do it indiscriminately to every single person charged with illegal entry. Under Obama it was a policy used sparingly. With affirmation of the inherent value and dignity of the affected migrants. And in conjunction with executive actions to adjust the status of millions of persons otherwise subject to detention and deportation, get them out of the detention and deportation process, and welcome them into the country with some semblance of permanent resident status. 

Hence why it is a bald-faced to say Trump is merely continuing Obama era policy, and persons who did not consider Obama's immigration policy particularly egregious have no cause to be calling Trump an orange little fascist.  

Edited June 26, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Excellen Browning]

22 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You are confused.

No one is saying Obama didn't run these detention centers or practice family separation--the difference is that Obama didn't do it indiscriminately to every single person charged with illegal entry. Under Obama it was a policy used sparingly. With affirmation of the inherent value and dignity of the affected migrants. And in conjunction with executive actions to adjust the status of millions of persons otherwise subject to detention and deportation, get them out of the detention and deportation process, and welcome them into the country with some semblance of permanent resident status. 

Hence why it is a bald-faced to say Trump is merely continuing Obama era policy, and persons who did not consider Obama's immigration policy particularly egregious have no cause to be calling Trump an orange little fascist.  

No, you're not I'm standing what I'm refuting. Clear cut asylum cases were sent back to where they came from under Obama as well. The "good faith effort" to separate the asylum cases from the criminals is much less effort than you claim.

[Shoblongoo]

45 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

No, you're not I'm standing what I'm refuting. Clear cut asylum cases were sent back to where they came from under Obama as well. The "good faith effort" to separate the asylum cases from the criminals is much less effort than you claim.

...I don't know how you think the system works, but just because you claim "asylum" doesn't mean you automatically get asylum. It means you get an opportunity to go in front of a judge and explain why you have a reasonable fear of persecution in your home country, and why the humanitarian interests of the law favor a finding that you should be removed from deportation proceedings + allowed to maintain residency in the United States. 

The Court does its due diligence in reviewing the individual facts and circumstances of your case; your claim is then either accepted or rejected on-the-merits. If it is rejected, you remain in deportation proceedings. 

That's how its supposed to work and that's how it was done under Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

Trump isn't even giving asylum seekers the opportunity to go in front of a judge and plead their case. Which is--again--a change in policy from prior administrations. Something he decided to do of his own volition; not something he is required to do to enforce the law. And may itself be a violation of law, to the extent the Immigration and Naturalization Act mandates judicial asylum-seeking procedures for all entrants to the United States (regardless of how they entered) claiming reasonable fear of persecution in their home countries.
_________

In any event, the central point you keep trying to dial back to with your posts is that its defensible to claim there's no clear-cut difference between what Trump is doing now and the immigration enforcement policy of his predecessors.

Which is nonsense.

That this defensive attempt to normalize Trump is coming from the same pundits and politicians who called his predecessor's actions on immigration "amnesty, " "open-borders," and "treason" should strike you as just a tad bit odd. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

A good day for democratic socialist Alexandria Cortez who ousted corporate shill Joe Crowley, who raised 10 times the amount of money over Cortez mainly from corporations, in the Democratic house race last night.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html

More of this please.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Edgelord

[Shoblongoo]

...well shit...

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393357-kennedy-announces-retirement-from-supreme-court

[Johann]

10 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...well shit...

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393357-kennedy-announces-retirement-from-supreme-court

Extremely disappointing. Like, I get the whole "I want to spend time with my family" thing, but at the same time, he's saying "I trust Trump with having another Supreme Court pick", so fuck him. I hope his remaining years are a total nightmare, because that's what the rest of us are getting.

McConnell is definitely going to push to get a rep in before November too.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Extremely disappointing. Like, I get the whole "I want to spend time with my family" thing, but at the same time, he's saying "I trust Trump with having another Supreme Court pick", so fuck him. I hope his remaining years are a total nightmare, because that's what the rest of us are getting.

McConnell is definitely going to push to get a rep in before November too.

Without question

I despise where this is going. The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim ban and now this...

Edited June 27, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I despise where this is going. The Supreme Court upholding the Muslim ban and now this...

The Court actually got that one right, I think, and effectively performed its role of checking executive overreach insofar as Trump was not able to pass the ban he originally signed and tried to enact; he had to cut out significant portions of the original travel ban (i.e. the unconstitutional parts) and enact a much more limited version of the ban to get it to a place where it could pass judicial review.

You'll recall the original Travel Ban excluded everyone of national origin from the targeted countries, including persons who had already gone through the immigration process and obtained legal permanent resident status prior to the ban.

So say for example a secular Iranian couple came to this country way back in the 1970s, fleeing the collapse of Iran's secular state and the rise of the Ayatollah's theocracy. And they were vetted. And they immigrated legally. And they've been living in America for 40+ years. And they had jobs and a house and kids here. And they pay taxes. And their children are American citizens. And they haven't been back to Iran since the 70s. Then in 2017 they went back to visit family for 2 weeks; they took a vacation from work and left their kids with a babysitter to go travel. 

...under Trump's original Travel Ban, that couple would not be allowed to reenter the United States. ANd they'd be detained at the airport + shipped off to one of Trump's deportation prison-camps if they tried. 

That's some Nazi shit blatantly unconstitutional.

It violates the due process clause and it violates separation of powers; if persons in the United States are naturalized legal residents within the meaning of statutory law set forth by Congress, the President cannot unilaterally deem them deportable aliens using criteria outside the Naturalization Act and not contemplated by Congress.  

...that part was shot down by the appellate courts immediately. Like within 24 hours of the first ban going into effect. 

And that part was never included or enforced in the subsequently redrafted ban--they knew they were going to lose if they took it to the Supreme Court. They dropped it. 

So there the Courts stopped Trump from behaving like a fascist unconstitutionally. 

The redrafted version of the ban just upheld by The Supreme Court? Yes--that's absolutely constitutional.

I'm not saying its good policy. But its not the Court's job to determine whether or not its good policy. Its the Court's job to determine whether or not the president has the authority to do it. 

The president has the authority to ban persons from countries that cannot meet baseline security requirements--as measured and defined by the consistently-applied methods + credible intelligence of his national security council--from entering the United States. 
__________

The most interesting thing about the Court's opinion here, IMO, was that it explicitly held Koremastu v. United States (the Supreme Court case holding that WWII-era detention of Japanese Americans in interment camps was constitutional) is bad law, was wrongfully decided, and cannot be cited as legal precedent.

...which is something the Court has never held before. Like when I was in law school the con. law professors taught that Korematsu was still good law and could still be used to argue the expansive scope of wartime executive powers, because it had never been overturned or contradicted in subsequent caselaw. 

Nice that the Court finely got around to addressing that. 

2 hours ago, Johann said:

McConnell is definitely going to push to get a rep in before November too.

Republicans have 51 votes in the Senate. 50 with John McCain absent.

If one or two Republican Senators ( Susan Collins maybe?) break with the president and refuse to confirm a harshly conservative nominee, they can hold off until after the midterms and force Trump to nominate a moderate.

Wouldn't get my hopes up. But it could happen. 

Dems should be fighting tooth-and-nail for this one, after the horseshit the GOP pulled with Scalia's vacancy. 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The Court actually got that one right, I think, and effectively performed its role of checking executive overreach insofar as Trump was not able to pass the ban he originally signed and tried to enact; he had to cut out significant portions of the original travel ban (i.e. the unconstitutional parts) and enact a much more limited version of the ban to get it to a place where it could pass judicial review.

You'll recall the original Travel Ban excluded everyone of national origin from the targeted countries, including persons who had already gone through the immigration process and obtained legal permanent resident status prior to the ban.

So say for example a secular Iranian couple came to this country way back in the 1970s, fleeing the collapse of Iran's secular state and the rise of the Ayatollah's theocracy. And they were vetted. And they immigrated legally. And they've been living in America for 40+ years. And they had jobs and a house and kids here. And they pay taxes. And their children are American citizens. And they haven't been back to Iran since the 70s. Then in 2017 they went back to visit family for 2 weeks; they took a vacation from work and left their kids with a babysitter to go travel. 

...under Trump's original Travel Ban, that couple would not be allowed to reenter the United States. ANd they'd be detained at the airport + shipped off to one of Trump's deportation prison-camps if they tried. 

That's some Nazi shit blatantly unconstitutional.

It violates the due process clause and it violates separation of powers; if persons in the United States are naturalized legal residents within the meaning of statutory law set forth by Congress, the President cannot unilaterally deem them deportable aliens using criteria outside the Naturalization Act and not contemplated by Congress.  

...that part was shot down by the appellate courts immediately. Like within 24 hours of the first ban going into effect. 

And that part was never included or enforced in the subsequently redrafted ban--they knew they were going to lose if they took it to the Supreme Court. They dropped it. 

So there the Courts stopped Trump from behaving like a fascist unconstitutionally. 

The redrafted version of the ban just upheld by The Supreme Court? Yes--that's absolutely constitutional.

I'm not saying its good policy. But its not the Court's job to determine whether or not its good policy. Its the Court's job to determine whether or not the president has the authority to do it. 

The president has the authority to ban persons from countries that cannot meet baseline security requirements--as measured and defined by the consistently-applied methods + credible intelligence of his national security council--from entering the United States. 

 

Yes, in a vacuum the decision may be correct in that the way this new attempt at the ban is worded is technically constitutional since the writing is not directly specifying a religion but you and I and anyone who's heard the rhetoric of the orange turd know that there's more this than what's carefully written in that ban. I don't believe rulings like this should be made without putting in some context and from the commentary I'm reading, it's as if those who voted for it deliberately chose to throw all context and implications aside in order to help it pass and that is fucking bullshit.

1. Conflict of interest. The countries in the list are deliberately excluding countries he has business with.

2. The rhetoric and message that Trump rallied the support for this ban from was explicitly to ban Muslims from coming into the country. That intent from Trump has not changed and regardless of the details, which may as well be a document that says in tiny fine print that most people will ignore: "This is not a ban on Muslims", you know for a fact that he and his supporters (including politicians) will use this court win as vindication for their hate of Muslims which will no doubt generate problematic incidents in the country and anti-Muslim cases. Pandora's box is a good metaphor here and the neglect of context and implications of this ruling has just opened the box.

3. It sets a bad precedent. If Trump can have his cronies (fuck Stephen Miller) change the wording on a proposal with the intent of attacking people that they don't like, which is pretty much non-whites and people who refuse to bend to the will of Trump and white supremacists, you know he'll proceed to do more of it starting with Central America under the pretense of national security because of MS-13. Hell they could proceed to propose something with wording that'll effectively result in cops not being reprimanded for shooting unarmed African Americans.

4. It is just bad for the country when you bring foreign affairs into the equation given recent history. For the good of the United States, foreign allies need to see resistance to Trump, not submission and this court ruling is flat out submission and a demonstration that apparently, you CAN rig the system bring about the will of a dictator.

You can say that we have a system of checks and balances, you can say that "it's not that bad yet" but at the end of day, our democracy was setup to have these checks and balances so that we couldn't have a lunatic in power to damage the country .  Trump should never have gotten as far as he currently is and with the corruption in the Republican party showing the apparent possibility that you can stack the 3 branches of government with lackeys that support Trump, well then what guarantee does the system have to protect the people from the tyrant if Russia succeeds in fucking up the Mid-term elections?

As a side note: What are everyone's thoughts on Maxine Waters suggestion for resisting GOP or just Trump supporters in general? Like, is the Red Hen's treatment of Sarah Sanders acceptable and something that the people should be allowed to do?

Edited June 28, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Johann]

44 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

As a side note: What are everyone's thoughts on Maxine Waters suggestion for resisting GOP or just Trump supporters in general? Like, is the Red Hen's treatment of Sarah Sanders acceptable and something that the people should be allowed to do?

I agree with her completely. It's effectively a form of non-violent protest that they can't ignore. Those fuckers don't deserve any respect or luxury whatsoever.

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

As a side note: What are everyone's thoughts on Maxine Waters suggestion for resisting GOP or just Trump supporters in general? Like, is the Red Hen's treatment of Sarah Sanders acceptable and something that the people should be allowed to do?

There's just a bunch of noise talking about the differences about how it's either okay or not okay to refuse service to a gay person, and if it is okay or not okay to ask someone to leave because of political affiliation.

Legally, yes, the former is a protected class while the latter is not, but I can't say ethically that I don't have a problem with the latter as well. There was a similar thing with Joe Biden back in 2012, although he was there specifically for a political reason instead of eating.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-biden-refused-service-in-2012/

The fact remained though that the store owners were directly praised by the GOP for this. I don't think it was right when it was done here and I don't think it was right when it was ruled that the bakery would refuse service to a gay couple.

(Essentially, as much as I do dislike the Republicans, this will very easily be flipped on Democrats and sets a bad precedent imo)

Edited June 28, 2018 by Edgelord