world

Trump considering 'brand new order' after travel ban halted

52 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Who wants to bet the "brand new order" is as unconstitutional as the old order?

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Who wants to bet the "brand new order" is as unconstitutional as the old order?

Had no idea the first one was unconstitutional.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Unless you can provide the court with evidence that these countries are a clear and present danger, then you're always going to lose. Not only that but after you do show they are a danger you have to show how your proposed policy will directly counter that. On top of that you have Trump's own words saying he wants to ban Muslims and that will cast a dark shadow on any policy that disproportionately effects them.

It's the same problem the GOP is having with their sham voter fraud laws. Courts have ruled that the GOP 1) hasn't given any evidence that there is a problem and 2) hasn't given any evidence that their fix would be effective.

Or with Planned Parenthood. The GOP hasn't proven that baby parts are being sold, and they haven't proven that closing all Planned Parenthood clinics is a rational solution to their imaginary problem even if it were real.

I guess you could say it's par for the course with the GOP. Use emotion and fear (and lies) to create outrage, then try to force in some racist or bigoted policy that "ends up" targeting women and minorities. As long as they keep pushing for a ban on countries who citizens do not engage in terrorism in the US then they're going to have a problem passing racist laws whose justification is that these people engage in terrorism in the US.

Instead of wasting time trying to pass Bannon's laws Trump would be better off doing whatever he's going to do to strengthen the vetting process. The ban was only going to last for 90 days so obviously he expected to have some new policy in place by then. Just move forward with that and stop wasting time in court trying to get things you can't have.

Or maybe he hasn't lifted a finger to create this new vetting system and his only focus is banning as many Muslims as possible.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

@Super

Don't worry, remember one thing, as with all presidents Trump is stacked with a lot of lawyers, there are always loopholes that can be exposed and ways to get around this ruling and I'm sure, they're working on that. If liberals can be that sneaky and block Trump, he can do the same. So let's see what happens next week, but knowing Trump, he's not going to sit back and take it.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Make America Great Again………..Bring Back Obama!

Number of days without Trump being a national embarrassment: 0

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Unless you can provide the court with evidence that these countries are a clear and present danger, then you're always going to lose. Not only that but after you do show they are a danger you have to show how your proposed policy will directly counter that.

Do you have the wording of a law or legal precedent to show that the government needs to “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one ? Decisions of the 9th Circuit are overturned by the Supreme Court in a huge majority of cases, more than any other district in the country. The judges are guilty of judicial overreach and violated the US Constitution, for which they took an oath. Congress can impeach them.

Judicial partisanship won’t stop unless we make Congress stop them.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Judicial partisanship is the new mainstream media.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

bass4funkFEB. 11, 2017 - 08:44AM JST If liberals can be that sneaky and block Trump, he can do the same.

So you think following the Constitution is "sneaky". I guess given your support for an autocrat, that's not unexpected.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

So much for SEE YOU IN COURT.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Make America Great Again………..Bring Back Obama!

Only in a movie sequel.

Number of days without Trump being a national embarrassment: 0

Number of days of the Dems and left loon rioters, and fascists embarrassing the nations: 95

So you think following the Constitution is "sneaky".

No, liberals NOT following it and undermining it is "sneaky"

I guess given your support for an autocrat, that's not unexpected.

What!?? I never supported Obama!!!!!

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Good man.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Make America Great Again………..Bring Back Obama!

Still living in a dream world.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Trump needs to make the order narrower and more specific. Ensure innocent people are not caught up in the order and also ensure that it specifically targets those known to be a potential risk to the U.S. Under Obama, the DHS openly admitted they could not properly vet all applicants for asylum, however we continued to let people come. Trump swung the pendulum to the other extreme.....the answer is somewhere in the middle.

It is interesting people calling Trump an autocrat. I recently visited Cambodia and saw that wonderful country. Also took the opportunity to learn more and more about what happened under Pol Pot. Some of the demonstrators against Trump seem to exhibit the same traits (defending the use of violence to block those who they disagree with from speaking)...From the Daily Californian (My old stomping grounds...years ago)

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-self-defense/

In this article an illegal alien, whose education is being payed for by the taxpayers, is boasting about blocking the free speech of a gay, Jewish man who has a black partner (some dude named Milo)

My point is it seems both extremes seem to have lost their minds and those of us in the middle are left scratching our heads.....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obvious troll is obvious.

Anyway, Trump has a well-known habit of making obnoxious or incendiary announcements whenever he wants to distract the public from something else he's done. Usually the thing he's trying to distract from is his usual white supremacist supporting, tyrannical dictatorship aspiring nonsense, but I think right now the thing he's trying to distract from is that the tide is finally turning against him.

A resolution of inquiry (first step towards impeachment) has been filed on the House Judiciary Committee. Even if it fails, procedural rules require it must be discussed on the floor within 2 weeks. One of his counselors just got caught explicitly breaking the law in order to curry favor with Trump over his other radical racist counselor. GOP town hall events are erupting into anger by conservatives who are furious with their Republican representatives for not standing up to Trump. And now 6 members of the Superbowl winning Patriots football team are refusing the customary congratulatory meeting with the President.

After only 3 weeks in office, Trump is an "unpresidented" trainwreck. Even in the unlikely event that he isn't removed from office before his term is up, he is certain to go down as the most failed President in US history. Resistance against him is popping up everywhere. His only chance is to distract from all that resistance. Act tough and maybe, just maybe his die-hard fanatical followers will rally. It really all depends on if the delicate snowflakes on his side can insulate themselves from all of the defeats Trump is suffering. Maybe he thinks pulling a Muslim ban 2.0 will make him look strong in the face of all this opposition.

Or maybe he's literally so senile and bigoted he doesn't understand why the majority of Americans oppose his vilification of innocent Muslims.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Katsu - Regarding your remark. I actually read the Resolution of Inquiry and found it quite interesting. This has been done several times in the past (I remember when it was done against Billy Carter, President Carter's brother and his Libyan connections). The resolution makes very good points, many of which I agree with (especially related to his business interests). The resolutions have never led to impeachment, but it may bring some sensitive issues to light.

I do have a big problem with Trump's conflict of interest as the military is going to be renting some space from him in one of his properties. think if Ms. Clinton would have won there would have been similar issues. I would have had an equal issue with the Clinton foundation. In no way am I trying to excuse Trump.

On the other hand I think some type of vetting process should occur. Trump's original order went too far and the problem now is that it is going to make it more difficult to get any reasonable legislation passed and the end result will be that his efforts backfire and there will be less security rather than more. In this case I think President Trump failed.

Again...I believe both extremes have gone way too far and the guy in the middle is wondering what the heck is going on.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tokyo-EngrFEB. 11, 2017 - 10:55AM JST On the other hand I think some type of vetting process should occur.

Some kind of vetting already occurs, and has occurred for decades. Trump's claim that we don't vet immigrants or refugees is a flagrant lie.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@bass No, liberals NOT following it and undermining it is "sneaky"

I'm not an authority on the judiciary nor the US Constitution, but fail to see how a federal judge - non-partisan and in this case appointed by a Republican - and a federal Court of Appeals, made up of judges who are constitutional scholars and who are tasked with upholding the constitution, could possibly NOT be following the Constitution and be trying to undermine it. Why would a US judge do anything to undermine the Constitution? How can interpreting the Constitution, which all judges do, be seen as undermining it?

@TokyoEng It is interesting people calling Trump an autocrat

You're right, it's too early to use that term. But in my opinion it's not too early to question what's he's trying to do as a president and in particular what powers he's trying to get for himself and the office.

I take your point that Pol Pot was an autocrat. Currently the world has several others who I would call autocrats. (Erdogan, Putin, Kim, among others) There are probably various degrees of being an 'autocrat'; my fear is Trump might try to be one.

So far I think people questioning his tactics and trying to limit his ability to become an autocrat - of any degree - are doing the right thing. No, I am NOT favoring any form of violence.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

trump is such an ignorant buffoon! He still hasn't figured out he ""leads"" a democracy NOT a trumptatorship!

He has now shown he has ZERO respect for judicial process & those that participate in that process, in a word he has SMEARED all levels of judges in the US!

If I was Neil Gorsuch I would be withdrawing my interest in the supreme court, being asked by trump will put a MASSIVE asterisk by your name & ANYBODY else nominated by this ignoramous.

Heaven help the US its going to NEED it!!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

"Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - have raised terrorism concerns. The states have argued that the executive order unconstitutionally blocked entry based on religion" Based on Religion....well in some of these countries there is little to zero Christians. Mainly because many Muslims persecute ...kill...anybody whom is not Muslim. These countries being Muslim is a byproduct of their own making through violence and intimidation of those whom are not. Ergo.....their logic is flawed.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Usually the thing he's trying to distract from is his usual white supremacist supporting, tyrannical dictatorship aspiring nonsense, but I think right now the thing he's trying to distract from is that the tide is finally turning against him.

Do you have any support of this? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is a White Supremacist supporter? As for the tide is turning against him, the libs never liked him, it's not anything new, the thing is, they are out in the streets making utter and complete fools of themselves, which to me is very funny.

A resolution of inquiry (first step towards impeachment) has been filed on the House Judiciary Committee. Even if it fails,

Which it will.

procedural rules require it must be discussed on the floor within 2 weeks. One of his counselors just got caught explicitly breaking the law in order to curry favor with Trump over his other radical racist counselor.

And who might that supposedly be?

GOP town hall events are erupting into anger by conservatives

No, most of the people losing their minds are mostly liberals in these town halls in Republican held states, I know the media has been so desperately trying to peddle that crap like in Utah, when Sen. Chaffetz tried to address an angry crowd.

who are furious with their Republican representatives for not standing up to Trump.

Again, the liberal loons that try to muscle the congressman and bully their way to push him to stand up to Trump.

And now 6 members of the Superbowl winning Patriots football team are refusing the customary congratulatory meeting with the President.

That's such a serious issue, Oh, how on Earth will the country move forward now? That's it, we are all doomed!

Some kind of vetting already occurs, and has occurred for decades. Trump's claim that we don't vet immigrants or refugees is a flagrant lie.

No, Trump never said, we don't do any vetting, he said, we don't do EXTREME vetting, which is true.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

So who here supports spreading the ban to more countries?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Donchan just gonna keep throwing wobbly fat darts until one of 'em hits something vaguely dart boardish

we don't do EXTREME vetting, which is true.

Just out of interest, what is the EXTREME version?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Generally, you agree upon a plan, and then you execute the plan.

This White House comes out with a plan, then another plan, then another plan, and then someone agrees to one of the plans, but no one knows which one, then there's a tweet, and then something happens with Ivanka, then they go to sleep.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Generally, you agree upon a plan, and then you execute the plan.

Planes are always subject to change sporadically.

This White House comes out with a plan, then another plan, then another plan, and then someone agrees to one of the plans, but no one knows which one, then there's a tweet, and then something happens with Ivanka, then they go to sleep.

Ahh, leave the man alone, When Obama was president, he never had a plan about Syria or on the domestic front with DACA, the jury is still out on the ruling on that, he was all over the place with that. Give Trump some credit, the man is new at this and if Obama can stumble, Trump should be allowed to stumble as well, best way to get on the job experience anyway.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Generally, you agree upon a plan

It could be Trump will take another page from Putin's book and use a 'contingency' based approach in his attempts to try to manage the country.

My sense is he has no detailed plans for anything. He's a shoot first businessman who's been able to use other people's money and a fleet of high priced lawyers and accountants to clean up the many messes he's made. He'll take shots (travel bans?) at what he wants and then react to how others react to his opening shot. Expect his staff, congress and the judiciary to be running at breakneck speed throughout his term in office trying to keep up with all the 'contingencies'. Full employment for lawyers?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Ahh, leave the man alone

That's the best advice I've heard yet Bass. Leave him alone, preferably somewhere remote and with an abundance of ravenous predators. On an almost serious note though, I think most people would be happy for him to just get on with his planes (sic). But he seems to have such difficulty in keeping his concentration. Must be exasperating for those who work close to him, reminds me of Kaiser Wilhelm II.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oh no...not again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A bit of rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, I think. He's gotten himself in a bit of a mess promoting his daughter's fashion brand (so much for the firewall between him and his brand - more importantly, it simply shows gross stupidity); but his NSA Secretary Flynn is in far deeper trouble, having been caught negotiating with the Russian Ambassador over sanctions before Trump was sworn in, which violates a whole lotta stuff (apparently, Flynn's conversations were recorded by the CIA; when first confronted, he denied, then fell back on the "I don't remember" defense when it became clear transcripts were circulating - STUPID).

The 25th Amendment allows for removal of a president due to incapacity if his cabinet makes such a recommendation to Congress and 2/3 of the body votes to agree. My guess is that it was will happen: it absolves the GOP of accusing one of their own of illegality yet still solves the problem. Three weeks in, and a clusterf@ck of problems. Prepare for President Pence.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yep, I mentioned this yesterday:

https://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/trump-tweets-see-you-in-court-after-appeals-court-refuses-to-reinstate-travel-ban#comment_2353217

If Trump appeals this to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ends up in a 4-4 tie, then this Appellate Court decision becomes the final say on the matter - and thus establishes the precedent. (BTW, that's how Obama's immigration Executive Order was struck down - a 4-4 Supreme Court tie, thus leaving the lower court ruling against it. Trump may lead the same fate.)

But if Trump puts aside his ego for awhile, he can avoid setting a precedent. He can just swallow this defeat, void this hastily created Executive Order, and create a new Executive Order - but this time, have it first vetted by the Justice Dept, the Congress lawmakers, Homeland Security, etc. to make sure that it would pass Constitutional muster and challenges.

But can Trump learn to pick his fights, or would he risk it all setting a precedent that could be used against any and all his future immigration Executive Orders

2 ( +2 / -0 )

BREAKING NEWS: early draft of new immigration order reads:

Tweetles of the Tweetleverse, I am calling for a complete and utter Tweet-Ban of Twitlers entering our country, until our Tweetle-Doers can figure out what the Tweets is going on! I declare this Tweet-Ban applies to all aliens, EXCEPT, Lawful Permanent Tweeters (LPTs) and Valid Valid Visa Holders-B (VVVHBs).

Signed the right honourable Tweeter-In-Chief.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

One good thing is that he's showing the world that USA is actually a country of laws not dictators thanks to the separation of the judiciary. Trump will lose all his court cases, like always

BTW, is Trump illiterate? He's not reading the EO's he's signing and he has a committee do his tweets. Doesn't read his own teleprompters either. He may be able to read here and there but it's looking like the US President is a functional illiterate!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Oh my...

The left is living in a pre-9/11 mentality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ustZC9Hcw

And, OH MY!

Retired Marine's message about travel ban goes viral

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0KMz_AUBFM

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The left is living in a pre-9/11 mentality

Oh, my. The short (or nonexistent) memory of many never fails to amaze. Do you remember when Bill Clinton went after al Qaida in Sudan and was blamed by the GOP for tail-dog wagging? And how two years later, his transition team desperately warned the incoming Trump admin of an impending attack, only to be brushed off? (The rest is history.) And how GWB, to his credit, made great efforts (continued by Obama) to maintain focus on terrorists and not create an enemy out of the Islamic religion itself? And how there have been no major terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 (gun violence and domestic terrorism dwarfs attacks by Islamic-based terrorists by an order of tens of thousands)?

Oh, my. Trump seems intent on overturning the success of almost two decades of bipartisan consensus and success on this issue. Oh, my indeed.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Well, it seems that Trump's orders have done what it was supposed to do: keep people from coming to America. According to several reports, travel to the U.S. is down compared to the same time last year. And it 's not only from countries on his list, but from Europe, Asia, and so on, due to the uncertainty it has created. Sadly, it means the travel industry in the U.S. has taken a hit and will continue to take a hit, all thanks to Trump.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass: Trump should be allowed to stumble as well, best way to get on the job experience anyway.

Well I suppose you can't have much lower expectations than that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well, it seems that Trump's orders have done what it was supposed to do: keep people from coming to America.

We were thinking of Yosemite this year. But under Trump? No thanks.

Good luck, America. The rest of you are rooting for you (Oompa Loompa gang excluded).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

there are always loopholes that can be exposed and ways to get around this ruling

Yes, with the wall (and Mexico paying for it) which won't happen. This is such a laugh. Please enlighten us with these "loopholes". Can't wait for SNL.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Peoples mindset seem to be returning to a pre 9/11 which isn't exactly good so i guess we will wait for another one then people will realize they were wrong. Hey japan we did it to you back during world war 2. All japanese were put in prison camps whether they were American born or not because it was a matter of national security and hardly anyone said a thing.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Hmm that's twice I've seen 'pre-911 mindset' today. I'm guessing it's the new talking point on the right. Meant to be an emotional trigger of course.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump's initial executive order was illogical and irrational and that's why it cannot be upheld by the courts. If Trump wants to keep out terrorists he should start with the Saudis, the ones responsible for 9/11. He could order that no new visas be issued to Saudis and I expect that would be allowed. But he won't do that as it would jeapordise profits from his business interests there. What he cannot do is to decree that legal permanent residents of the US not be allowed to return.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump should be allowed to stumble as well, best way to get on the job experience anyway.

I would rather have a president who knows what to do before he gets the job, wouldn't you? Sources within the White House have reported that Trump was unaware of the content of some of his own executive orders. Seems he doesn't read them before signing them. These things are written by a dangerous anarchist (Bannon) and an angry, zealous, annoying millennial (Miller), and then defended by amoral opportunists like Conway and Sphincter and a spineless GOP machine headed by so-called godly men such as Pence, Ryan, McConnell, and Priebus.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump will prevail in securing our borders. That's one of the biggest reasons he was elected and he keeps his promises. And, oh my...

New poll says Trump is more trusted than media ( by 10 percentage points! )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnGF0mbEO4I

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

How many court decisions will end up against the Trump administration this year? Put me down for 20 and $10.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Please, Trump build that wall protect your borders and don't let your supporters travel outside the US the ones that are already outside the US make a new executive order making them return to the US immediately.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh my...

Responding to court's refusal to reinstate the travel ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt4G-9JmzEk

Northern... You might want to rephrase that last post of yours so that it makes some sense.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Had no idea the first one was unconstitutional. anybody with half a brain or some knowledge of the constitution in Trumps administration should have told him this. But if a President surrounds himself with yes men and women you may as well be talking to yourself. bunch of sheeple amateurs

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Had no idea the first one was unconstitutional.

That's why we have judges. They are paid to understand.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The president has cast the order as crucial for national security.

"Stupid but legal." , "It caused enormous disruption without making us any safer. ", "The notion that we had to act immediately because hordes of jihadists in these seven countries were about to board airplanes to blow up Americans is absurd.", "Add to that the costs of the ill-prepared, unvetted, sloppy rollout."

Krauthammer

Unconstitutional, constitutional, what's unquestionable is that it is unnecessary, ill advised, poorly executed and just plain stupid. Fodder for the champions of low expectations.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For me, I fear how many "home grown" potential attackers are being ignored while the various political parties, and the commander-in-chief, try to score political points over each other. With the exception of 9/11, of which the highest proportion of attackers were Saudi (not on Trump's ban list), most terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been home-grown. The circus that has been Trumps sudden edicts that the relevant authorities were unaware of has taken valuable resources away from the actual process of "keeping America safe". Oh, you troll by asking what proof I have of this? Look at the how the courts are being tied up with this stupidity. While we're dancing to the Trump circus, we are taking valuable resources away from the very authorities that are meant to protect us. It's the difference between media spin and actual action. What's the point of scoring right-wing media political points at the expense of actual national security. But hey, those who object will dance the far right-wing line that it's leftist-whinging. As a moderate right, that argument disgusts me...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The 25th Amendment allows for removal of a president due to incapacity if his cabinet makes such a recommendation to Congress and 2/3 of the body votes to agree. My guess is that it was will happen: it absolves the GOP of accusing one of their own of illegality yet still solves the problem. Three weeks in, and a clusterf@ck of problems. Prepare for President Pence.

Dream on and good luck with that. LOL

Trump will prevail in securing our borders. That's one of the biggest reasons he was elected and he keeps his promises. And, oh my...

New poll says Trump is more trusted than media ( by 10 percentage points! )

Bingo!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump's ban was not well thought out, caught up too many innocent people, and poorly executed. The result of a poorly planned knee jerk policy which seemed like more of an effort to appeal to a voting block.

On the other hand under President Obama both the FBI and the DHS admitted it is impossible to properly vet all Syrian refugees under the current system.

Another issue I am in the middle on. Trump's ban went ridiculously too far and was properly struck down by the courts. The previous administration was a bit careless in my opinion.

In spite of all the arguing I would just like to see a rational policy and a policy where the Director of the FBI and DHS come out on TV and say that they believe it works (rather than come out and say it is impossible).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Trump's ban went ridiculously too far"

I dunno, a lot of people are complaining that Saudi Arabia isn't on the list.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites