Trump travel ban: US judge blocks new executive order

[yuna628 9,873]

10 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i thought the preface of the most recent block still went back to trump (and miller's) repeated stance that this eo was a muslim ban and the reason we need a muslim ban is because the president said so. of course i'm thinking about all this as a simpleton but that's pretty much what i've gotten out of it. the op and the judges who disagree are showing other cases where presidents have made decisions regarding immigration, but imo, that doesn't matter if the intention of the ban is to bar muslims from certain countries..because that alone is unconstitutional.

 

Whenever someone points out the things that other Presidents have done regarding bans or interment of immigrants, visa holders, or those of certain national origin as evidence that this ban is perfectly fine, I can only smirk a little. What they seek to do is justify the actions of the current President through the actions of past Presidents, as if that should make it 'ok'. Just because a government does something does not make it appropriate or lawful, even if it was accepted by the public at the time (via certain prejudice). History tells us that even in the cases where we upheld the supposed lawfulness of our actions, we later decided collectively as a nation, through our court system, and through changes in the law via congress that what we did in the past was wrong in those cases.. on every basic level. History also tells us it did not make us any safer... and if anything, proved how shameful fear can make society.

[Dashinka 25,885]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Whenever someone points out the things that other Presidents have done regarding bans or interment of immigrants, visa holders, or those of certain national origin as evidence that this ban is perfectly fine, I can only smirk a little. What they seek to do is justify the actions of the current President through the actions of past Presidents, as if that should make it 'ok'. Just because a government does something does not make it appropriate or lawful, even if it was accepted by the public at the time (via certain prejudice). History tells us that even in the cases where we upheld the supposed lawfulness of our actions, we later decided collectively as a nation, through our court system, and through changes in the law via congress that what we did in the past was wrong in those cases.. on every basic level. History also tells us it did not make us any safer... and if anything, proved how shameful fear can make society.

It is kind of hard to prove or disprove whether or not it will make things any safer.  However you are correct, just because a government does something does not necessarily mean it is right as history has shown.  From Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, to FDR's detention of Japanese citizens during WWII, to Jimmy Carter's suspension of visas of Iranians during the Iran Hostage situation, most would look back and now see these were over-the-top reactions to a specific situation and find scant evidence if they actually accomplished anything.  However, we could argue that the increased scrutiny of people such as the security we now have to go through at airports have led to safer air travel even though it is a pita.  What scares me is that when an action is taken, we now have a judiciary that seems to be more intent on being part of the political process than actually ruling on the law or EO. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

17 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

 

So the last 8 years having someone in office who was against the constitution was a good thing? Obama wanted open borders and everybody to come in this country no problem. All the while forgetting about regular working class Americans who put him there. He would rather pander to people from outside this country than uphold the values of this country.

 

How is Trumps ban unAmerican, it has been done in the past. Not one official argument against the ban pays out a argument that it's unamerican, instead it lays out false truths saying it's a Muslim ban or that it's racist. Sorry but a news outlet I read from Saudi Arabia called Alarabiya also said it wasn't a Muslim ban because it leaves the vast majority of Muslim countries aren't affected by it.

 

Stop listening to the open border talking points and start listening to the facts.

My comment had nothing to do with the travel ban. I'm not in favor of open borders. I'm sure you were just as proud and adamant when Obama was your leader. Otherwise your statement was hypocritical. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

obama deported an insane amount of people, he definitely doesn't support open borders. that's silly.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

9 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

obama deported an insane amount of people, he definitely doesn't support open borders. that's silly.

He did not. He wanted to fill the country with Muslim terrorists. 

[OriZ 3,165]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It is kind of hard to prove or disprove whether or not it will make things any safer.  However you are correct, just because a government does something does not necessarily mean it is right as history has shown.  From Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, to FDR's detention of Japanese citizens during WWII, to Jimmy Carter's suspension of visas of Iranians during the Iran Hostage situation, most would look back and now see these were over-the-top reactions to a specific situation and find scant evidence if they actually accomplished anything.  However, we could argue that the increased scrutiny of people such as the security we now have to go through at airports have led to safer air travel even though it is a pita.  What scares me is that when an action is taken, we now have a judiciary that seems to be more intent on being part of the political process than actually ruling on the law or EO. 

That's my issue with this current ruling. The judge said so himself...basically, he did it because it was Trump, basically, he did it because it might make an imaginary kid sad. He didn't rule on the constitutionality of the EO. I personally didn't like the first EO, I thought it was horrible, useless, but legal. This EO has actually tackled many of the issues some of us here had with the previous one, is still legal, and is also still useless. I don't believe for a second that it will make us safer, but I know how to differentiate, unlike some, my personal opinion and the question of did the judge actually do his job properly? I believe the answer is no.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I am with the States and Judges on this one. Trump has a right to be the bitter nut job scumbag he clearly is, but it doesn't have to cost everyone else around him their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both EO's are at their heart wrong. Scumbag 0 - Justice 2!