world

Trump's immigration order faces mounting legal questions

91 Comments
By SADIE GURMAN and ERIC TUCKER

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

91 Comments
Login to comment

Doctors and scientists turned away. Small children kept from their parents...

What incompetent, bigoted cowards Trump, Bannon, and their supporters are.

18 ( +23 / -5 )

We took for granted the fact that Obama had the ability to think long and hard about something, and then come back and make the right decisions.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

“While this ban does not apply to all Muslims, it only applies to Muslims,” said Gadir Abbas, one of the council’s lawyers. “That type of religious gerrymandering is illegal.”

The sounds false. The ban targets citizens from Muslim-majority countries, but it doesn't target only Muslims from those countries.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

But a different law prevents discrimination against the issuance of an immigrant visa based on a person’s nationality or place of birth.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I love it - bring on the Leftist outrage!!

Federal judges in New York and several other states issued orders that temporarily block the government from deporting people with valid visas who arrived after Trump’s travel ban took effect.

Only a few people - maybe 150 - will be affected. Once the authorities are able to work these out in a day or two it's over. As president, Trump absolutely has the power to manage who gets visa's in the short term. So the ACLU lunatics will file a lawsuit and by the time it winds it's way through the legal system the three month period will be over and a new policy will be out.

What incompetent, bigoted cowards Trump, Bannon, and their supporters are.

I don't know if they are all those things you say or not, but the common sense policy of vetting tens of thousands of people entering the country from terrorist states is simple common sense - something that Obama lacked.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

This is nothing new. America has had the Chinese exclusion act and the Yellow Peril propaganda which if you look at it EXACTLY mirrors what we see today with the refugee exculsion and Islamic Peril propaganda.

Funny how all the countries that Trump has blacklisted are countries that the US has bombed and destroyed. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iran (not bombed but hurt by sanctions). So the US bombs and destroys countries and their people and then boxes the people in. That's a form of genocide.

it does not cover all Muslims from all countries, notably omitting Saudi Arabia — the home nation for the majority of Sept 11 hijackers.

The rest being from the the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon, NONE of which are on the list.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Trump and his actions are perfect proof that Osama Bin Laden has won. Trump is playing to Bin Laden's script and too dumb to notice.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Trump and his actions are perfect proof that Osama Bin Laden has won. Trump is playing to Bin Laden's script and too dumb to notice.

Really? How so?

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Banning and detaining people based on their nationality, religion (or name like some posters are recommending here), and not based on their wrong -doing, is reminding me some dark time I thought will never come back and for what US and the world fought each other united.Maybe soon he will order those staying in the country to wear some kind of yellow marks on their clothes so they can be identified easily while preparing some trains to deport those who are too weak to help America to be great again.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Trump is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If an extremist is granted a visa and allowed into the US like the female half of the San Bernadino attack due to improper vetting ,then Trump will get hammered by liberals for that as well.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

the common sense policy of vetting tens of thousands of people entering the country from terrorist states is simple common sense

Except when they are Saudi terrorists given US visas by the CIA?

http://visasforterrorists.blogspot.jp/

Except when they are jihadi terrorists promoted by the US because they are anti-Iranian?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/clinton-gang-push-war-iran/c3zmmowweaalzjh/

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Yes Trump is wrong and is destroying the US. Everyone here is posting but it seems no one is doing. The lawyers will challenge in the courts...run by the powerful and rich. In the Northwest we are gaining momentum and our rallies continue to increase and get bigger. A revolution is coming to the US and bigger and more aggressive than 1960's. Come out from behind your keyboards, take to the streets, and join us in the fight. Most of we that are here know the system is rigged and was confirmed when Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Too bad but we have reached the last resort and it is time for action and we need numbers in the street. We are easy to find in Portland and Seattle.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Trump - a poster boy for radical recruiters since 2017

6 ( +9 / -3 )

The US already does vetting. Ask a Trump fan if he knows about the vetting program, and he will tell you that he doesn't. Absent of any facts, they turn to fear, and that's how we get support for policies like this.

Add to that the continuing problem of the GOP being nearly exclusively white. When you don't have friends who might suffer through something like this then it's easier to go along with it.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Banning and detaining people based on their nationality, religion (or name like some posters are recommending here), and not based on their wrong -doing,

Hogwash, there is nothing racist about it, the 7 countries that are subject to this temporary ban have problems of their own when it comes to migration, visas, travel restrictions, apprehensions and people being detained for possible terrorist activities and because of that and knowing that the 7 mentioned are countries extremely hostile towards the US, why should we take a chance? We allow Muslims from 46 other countries as well, so that argument that the left tries to peddle is giving me serious headache.

is reminding me some dark time I thought will never come back and for what US and the world fought each other united.Maybe soon he will order those staying in the country to wear some kind of yellow marks on their clothes so they can be identified easily while preparing some trains to deport those who are too weak to help America to be great again.

Seriously?? When Trump starts dividing families, putting them in Gas chambers, making Muslims live in ghettos and strip them from all their personal possessions and wealth and campaign on eradicating muslims from the planet, then you have a very serious persuasive argument to back up you. Personally, I think this was long overdo.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

Banning and detaining people based on their nationality, religion (or name like some posters are recommending here), and not based on their wrong -doing

Like the time Iranian nationals had their visas cancelled under President Carter to apply pressure to Iran's government release American hostages.or Obama banning visas for Iraqi refugees maybe ? ....just to name two relatively recent examples.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

In no particular order of importance, since they are all critical points:

o Where are your tax returns, Mr. Trump? o What are your ties to the Russian government, Mr. Trump? o Why do you continue to insult and undermine U.S. combat veterans? o Why are you picking fights with allies and seeking close ties with proven adversaries? o Why have you effectively blinded yourself to all the information the massive US intelligence apparatus has at its disposal in favor of a newspaper editor whose personal experience with international affairs ended in the 80s? o Why do you think wealth and fame give you the right to sexually assault women? o Why do you continue to feel Americans are so gullible as to believe this drive to ban Muslims isn't the religion-tainted, racist fear mongering that it so very clearly is?

Yep, the people are indeed taking back their government. And it starts with getting you, charlatan of the century, to 'fess up.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Takeing the govt. back at this time needs more than getting Trump to fess up. People need to get out and make the voice heard. If you are overseas come back and join the fight as there is one chance to stop this mad man and if he is not stopped America as we know it is over. National Socialists appealed to the masses the same way. We do not know the outcome of legal challenge.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

SuperLib: Add to that the continuing problem of the GOP being nearly exclusively white.

Continuously attacking white people is a big reason why the Dems lost the presidential election and over 1,000 local and state legislators since Obama took office. Racism is disgusting and particularly so when it is so open and blatant as it is on the part of Democrats. Democrats have always been the party of racial separation since they practiced the identity politics of slavery, the Klan, and Jim Crowe.

Nordic503: Too bad but we have reached the last resort and it is time for action and we need numbers in the street. We are easy to find in Portland and Seattle.

Yes, please take to the streets and protest democracy and common sense immigration laws. Protest against the privileged whites that you hate so much. The American people need to see the Lefts extremism on television every night. The assaults and destruction of property. The reactionary response to Trump is mindless and self-defeating. So by all means, do take to the streets and bring down trust in the Federal government. Then maybe Americans can go back to the way things should be with the States providing for social stability and for the needs of it's various citizens.

I truly thought that Trump had no chance to win the election. I didn't vote for him. But I've come to realize that the American Left has taken it's ascendent racial advantages and used it to divide itself from white working class Americans. They will double down on this by selecting a race-baiting leader for the DNC. How can the Left unite the country when it constantly calls white Americans innately and irredeemably racist? Then turn around and attack those same people as deplorable for not agreeing with them. Constantly demonizing people for past injustices they took no part in is no way to bring them over to a different point of view. The Left is neck deep in identity politics and it will find itself forever aggrieved and hostile to "the other". It will win in some places but will ensure that Republicans will keep a majority in Congress for the foreseeable future.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Checks and balances.

The EO just gives the govt agencies 90 days to check if what they are doing can be improved or not. It isn't forever. With every new change, someone is always harmed. My family was harmed by the ACA the last 3 yrs. Just waiting for that harm to be undone now. Nobody listened to people like my family about the harm the ACA was causing us. We were left with little choice.

President Trump is just trying to do what he believes he was elected to do. If he didn't, his supporters would be pissed.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"whether the new immigration policy unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims."

No, it but it will help keep out terrorists and people who don't like our country.

Is the temporary travel ban about the safety of America?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CBtUxbtHo

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

The sounds false. The ban targets citizens from Muslim-majority countries, but it doesn't target only Muslims from those countries.

I have no idea why you would be thumbed down by even one person for asking a question. I see so much paranoia on both sides of this argument that merely questioning something is seen as being the enemy. Yes, it was only one thumb down (for now) but I think the US and people on both sides should take a breath and respect each other's rights to speak.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@backs respect each other's rights to speak.

I fully agree. But when a poster sends fake news like this:

TV news is reporting here this morning that the shooters were both Syrian "refugees" who entered Canada just over a week ago. . .

they need to be called out. I cannot respect someone who makes up stories or slimes the truth. Though these posters have the right to say what they want (within, of course, the normal bounds) others have an equal right to rebut their points. Anyone who posts fake news or blatant lies needs to be called out.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

When Trump starts dividing families, putting them in Gas chambers, making Muslims live in ghettos and strip them from all their personal possessions and wealth and campaign on eradicating muslims from the planet, then you have a very serious persuasive argument to back up you.

Personally I don't think we need to literally wait until he is unleashing a second holocaust to raise objective concerns about the direction he is taking the US down.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

As president, Trump absolutely has the power to manage who gets visa's in the short term. So the ACLU lunatics will file a lawsuit and by the time it winds it's way through the legal system the three month period will be over and a new policy will be out. not if its deemed unconstitutional he cant, that goes for any other discriminatory executive order he can dream up in the future.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Seriously?? When Trump starts dividing families, putting them in Gas chambers, making Muslims live in ghettos and strip them from all their personal possessions and wealth and campaign on eradicating muslims from the planet, then you have a very serious persuasive argument to back up you.

Seriously?? That is how far things would have to go before you would be persuaded? I think you hit 'submit' too quickly and/or miswrote. You can't really mean that.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Trump absolutely has the power to manage who gets visa's in the short term. So the ACLU lunatics will file a lawsuit and by the time it winds it's way through the legal system the three month period will be over and a new policy will be out.

He doesn't have the power to ignore a court order. However, his government is doing so.

One week in, and the constitution is already dust. Great job Republicans!!!

10 ( +12 / -2 )

I have no idea why you would be thumbed down by even one person for asking a question.

They get it from the real media. Afraid of making any group feel bad...Hahaha! Unless they are conservative conservatives!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/27/nbcs-chuck-todd-media-knew-how-hated-hillary-was-h/

NBC’s Chuck Todd confessed that he and others in the mainstream news media played down just how despised Hillary Clinton was in the heartland due to the fear of appearing “sexist.”

What’s more, he admitted, the mainstream media failed to “tell the stories of all Americans.”

“Where I think political correctness got in the way of what we all knew as reporters and didn’t fully deliver was how hated the Clintons were in the heartland,” the “Meet the Press” host admitted Thursday to former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a interview for the “1947” podcast.

“And I think it was a fear of, ‘Oh, is it going to look like it’s sexist, anti-woman if we say that?’” he added, pointing out that on the hustings he saw numerous “Hillary for Prison” signs adorning the front yards of rural America.

“I think we underplayed it a little bit out of political correctness fears,” Mr. Todd said. “No member of the press corps wants to look like they’re singling out a group and making a group feel bad, right, whatever that [group] is.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Jees, it hasn't even been 2 weeks and it looks as though America has been irredeemably disgraced. It just doesn't make sense why someone would deliberately shame their own country like this

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The acting Attorney General just got fired for refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. I agree with this decision, by the way. It was totally a political based decision from an Obama appointee, same as the politically biased comments from Obama himself earlier today.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Race has everything to do with it. It's easier for the GOP to pass laws that disproportionately hurt people who are not in their base, and since the parties are dominated along racial lines, people outside of their base include nearly every minority.

These people are just some far away brown skinned immigrants to the GOP, a group they have no current interaction with and will have no future interaction with. Banning a 25-year old Somali PHD student studying at an American university is nothing to the GOP. Literally nothing. Maybe even better for them because if they stay here and become a citizen they are more likely to vote Democrat.

The reason (this time) is security, but it can be any number of things like cost, rights, etc. It's just too dangerous to let these people in. That's what's been sold to the base.

But when it comes to a Syrian already living here and is under investigation for terrorism and is on the no fly list, Republicans actually want to protect this guy's right to buy a gun. What happened? What happened was they realized their policy would actually impact them so they carved out a nice little exception to their steadfast devotion to security. The part that entered their world.

So now we're banning Iraqi children from entering because of the danger while at the same time protecting the right to bear arms to the ones here already under investigation. Bravo, GOP. Bravo.

As long as Republicans continue to be a single race party these things are going to continue to happen. This includes things like voter suppression laws, abortion, Planned Parenthood, immigration, healthcare, lots of things.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Trump and his actions are perfect proof that Osama Bin Laden has won. Trump is playing to Bin Laden's script and too dumb to notice.

bass

Really? How so?

OK, let me spell it out for you. OBL is dead, but his legacy lives on in a more virulent form, ISIS. One of ISIS's central strategies, clearly stated by its leader, is to destroy the "gray zone", in other words moderate and tolerant forms of Islam. To do this they want ordinary Muslims to see non-Muslims and particularly the West as at war with Islam in general, that the West hates Muslims, that the West discriminates against them. This is a very effective recruiting tool. Almost all of the Paris and Brussels attackers were Muslims from communities that have been marginalized by the majority society for decades. In Paris, if you live in one of these communities and you have an Arab or North African name, you will have a very hard time getting a decent job. ISIS uses these social realities and sentiments to recruit disaffected youth to its abhorrent ideology.

Trump originally wanted a Muslim ban (according to Rudy Guilianni), but his advisors thought that would be legally difficult to carry out. So he went for a ban on certain Muslim-majority countries. Refugees from these places were already being carefully vetted.

Now, when Muslims see people who are escaping indescribable horror, mostly women and kids, being denied entry to the United States, separated from their families, because of the majority religion (Islam) of the country they come from, what are they to think about America?

That's why Trump and the dimwitted ideologues in his administration are giving aid to the enemy.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I want to know why all these women and children who are escaping are so insistent to enter the UNITED STATES? If they are simply trying to get somewhere safe, why not go to anywhere that will take them, including a Muslim country? And why is ISIS blowing up places that ARE accepting Muslim refugees, seems those places would be exempt but they are not.

So this is how I heard it from someone. What is the benefit to the citizens of the United States of America to accept any Muslim refugees? if it is just for people to feel good about themselves, the risk is too great. There needs to be some other reason.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

yes, I want to know why the CEO of Starbucks wants to hire 10,000 refugees but he is unwilling to hire 10,000 American veterans who are homeless. Have any of you ever been to downtown Seattle and see all the homeless Americans?

I guess he doesnt get the social applause from hiring homeless veterans that he gets from refugees?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Trump didnt and doesn`t want to do that.>

""They have some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the s--- out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. ... I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left." - Donald J Trump

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It didn't take long for Trump to become the most hated president in US history -- less than a week. Well done, Trump! Won't be long before he's impeached. Hopefully soon after he's thrown in prison.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

OK, let me spell it out for you. OBL is dead, but his legacy lives on in a more virulent form, ISIS. One of ISIS's central strategies, clearly stated by its leader, is to destroy the "gray zone", in other words moderate and tolerant forms of Islam. To do this they want ordinary Muslims to see non-Muslims and particularly the West as at war with Islam in general, that the West hates Muslims, that the West discriminates against them. This is a very effective recruiting tool.

I see, so they were thinking the same thing when they tried to bomb the WTC in 1993 or the USS Cole and the Kenyan embassy in 1998? Sorry, not buying that argument and even if your analysis were correct, why do we have to submit and walk on egg shells to appease the jihadists? If Europe does, that on them, Obama did as well and now Trump is, blank you and I'm not going to let you intimidate me. I will submit to you, Trump hard stance is going well with "a lot" of military personal that are happy that they have a leader that wants to crush as many of these guys as possible.

Almost all of the Paris and Brussels attackers were Muslims from communities that have been marginalized by the majority society for decades. In Paris,

Here we go making excuses for the terrorists. When. Oh, when will the left realize, in life, when you commit acts of violence you d have to be accountable for your actions.

if you live in one of these communities and you have an Arab or North African name, you will have a very hard time getting a decent job. ISIS uses these social realities and sentiments to recruit disaffected youth to its abhorrent ideology.

Trump originally wanted a Muslim ban (according to Rudy Guilianni), but his advisors thought that would be legally difficult to carry out. So he went for a ban on certain Muslim-majority countries.

Temporarily and once they pass the vetting process, they can proceed, so what's the fuss?

Refugees from these places were already being carefully vetted.

Obama's version of vetting and Trump's are vastly different. You may think they were carefully and properly vetted, Trump and his security think otherwise.

Now, when Muslims see people who are escaping indescribable horror, mostly women and kids, being denied entry to the United States, separated from their families, because of the majority religion (Islam) of the country they come from, what are they to think about America?

I really could care less, I'm worried more about the persecuted Christians and Yazidis first, they should get the highest priority and then we can take a look at the Refugees from Muslim countries. But remember, there's always Canada.

That's why Trump and the dimwitted ideologues in his administration are giving aid to the enemy.

Oh, you believe so?

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

The Attorney General did not enforce the order because it was not legal as it stands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

6 ( +8 / -2 )

No, the Attorney General didnt enforce the order because she was an Obama appointee wanting to make a political statement. Plus it is easy to get yourself fired when you would have been out of the job next week anyway. I bet if she had 4 more years on the job she would have thought more about enforcing it.

Now the order might well BE found illegal at some point. But that has not happened so its not why she did this.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

@bass I will submit to you, Trump hard stance is going well with "a lot" of military personal that are happy that they have a leader that wants to crush as many of these guys as possible.

Do you have a source for this, is it anecdotal evidence, wishful thinking, projection, or are you spreading another fake news story. By the way: Trump has not sold his assets as you previously claimed.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

the Attorney General didnt enforce the order because she was an Obama appointee wanting to make a political statement.

How do you know? Why is it unthinkable that she wanted to make a political statement not because Obama appointed her, but rather because she finds Trump's actions to be reprehensible? It's obvious that people across the world find his actions to be so, why do you automatically defer to her not actually feeling that way but only doing so because of who appointed her?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

why do we have to submit and walk on egg shells to appease the jihadists?

Who said anything about appeasing jihadists or "making excuses for the terrorists"? I simply explained how treating Islam in general as an evil and Muslims en masse as suspect is going to have seriously negative repercussions on everyone. This is not just some bleeding heart liberal armchair philosophizing. Experts across the political spectrum (including those in the Bush administration) have noted this. The only ones who don't get this are too much blinded by paranoia, anger, and hatred.

Trump is, blank you and I'm not going to let you intimidate me.

Wow, I bet terrorists are shaking in their shoes and will never commit another act now that Trump is in charge.

Trump is all about ego and bluster. Tough talk, demonizing Muslims, and indiscriminate bombing isn't going to solve any problems.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Because it is obvious. If she really simply disagreed, she could have resigned. Plus she didnt even say it is illegal, she is simply not convinced that it IS legal. Big difference and it is not for her to determine if it is legal, her job is to enforce the executive orders that the President makes.

Was there ever a case where the Justice Department did this to Obama even after he overruled Congress and the will of the people with Immigration executive orders? If there was, I would support her as doing what she thought was right with no political statement.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

it is not for her to determine if it is legal

It is most definitely the job of an Attorney General to determine if something is legal

7 ( +8 / -1 )

It's funny how some people still support this reality TV star who is just trolling everyone.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

If she really simply disagreed, she could have resigned.

As you say, she could have. But maybe she didn't 'simply' disagree, maybe she disagreed fundamentally, and wanted to use her position to make a statement on something she fundamentally disagrees with.

Plus she didnt even say it is illegal, she is simply not convinced that it IS legal.

Ok, but that also doesn't somehow prove that she decided her position based on who appointed her, rather than a fundamental opposition to Trump's actions.

it is not for her to determine if it is legal, her job is to enforce the executive orders that the President makes.

Sure, I agree. But that doesn't show that her stance was a result of who appointed her, rather than due to her fundamental beliefs.

Was there ever a case where the Justice Department did this to Obama even after he overruled Congress and the will of the people with Immigration executive orders? If there was, I would support her as doing what she thought was right with no political statement.

Why? Is there some rule that says that someone cannot make a statement based on their fundamental beliefs rather than based on who appointed them, if someone else didn't do it first? I'm sure you can see the problem with that logic - it would mean that there could never be anyone to do it for their fundamental beliefs, as someone else always has to be first.

So none of what you have given is evidence. Again what evidence do you have that she made the statement due to who appointed her, rather than due to a fundamental disbelief?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

They have no determination ability.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.

Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I don't know if they are all those things you say or not, but the common sense policy of vetting tens of thousands of people entering the country from terrorist states is simple common sense - something that Obama lacked.

Wolfpack - there was always a firm vetting procedure in place under Obama. "Common sense" is not acting in an arbitrary way and alienating the vast majority of the world's muslims who, let's not forget, are suffering far more as a result of islamist terrorism than the citizens of Western countries are.

US citizens are more likely to face terrorist threats as a consequence of this unjust ban than they would have been if the existing safeguards had continued to be applied. The threat is far greater from US citizens who have been brainwashed, not from legitimate refugees who have been very carefully vetting before entry.

"Common sense" is that the right to bear arms under the constitution (obviously only meant to apply in the revolutionary era, not the modern day) is FAR less important than maintaining the principles of liberty, democracy and equality before the law that the constitution upholds. You are freaking out about a tiny threat when every month hundreds of Americans are muderered with guns in non-terrorist crimes.

God help America

FnC

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

you answered your own question. She was doing her job representing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. And the one that says you can't discriminate on religion on government decisions. There's no point in going to court to lose.

Trump is no lawyer, and loses to lawyers all the time.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

They have no determination ability.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

But you still haven't given anything to support your statement that the Attorney General didnt enforce the order because she was an Obama appointee wanting to make a political statement.

It seems like you were trying to discredit her actions based on who appointed her, attempting to discount that she may have done this out of purely ideological motivations. Now, I'm leaving open the possibility that you may be right, and that the theory I just gave is incorrect, but so far you haven't given anything that shows your original statement to be anything else. So convince me otherwise.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

frontandcentre JAN. 31, 2017 - 03:03PM JST US citizens are more likely to face terrorist threats as a consequence of this unjust ban than they would have been if the existing safeguards had continued to be applied.

The U.S. was refusing entry to many Muslims long before Trump took office. The fact remains that these countries were first formally singled out as potential threats under Obama, not Trump.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The U.S. was refusing entry to many Muslims long before Trump took office.

Not based on their being Muslim.

The fact remains that these countries were first formally singled out as potential threats under Obama, not Trump.

Yes, they were. But the difference is that Trump has taken that determination and used it to deny the people, based on their religion.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@sf2k: when did furnish advice and opinions become personally determine if something is legal or not and refuse to enforce it when ordered by the President?

It seems like you were trying to discredit her actions based on who appointed her, attempting to discount that she may have done this out of purely ideological motivations. Now, I'm leaving open the possibility that you may be right, and that the theory I just gave is incorrect, but so far you haven't given anything that shows your original statement to be anything else. So convince me otherwise.>

Of course it is impossible to determine a persons internal motivations unless they are stupid enough to say it out loud. You mention fundamental disagreement. The political affiliation of a person is an indicator of their fundamental values.

It is simply hard to believe that Obama would have appointed a person whose fundamental values are closer to what Trump believes than what he does. If this was a matter of principle, could have just resigned and said that it didnt match her PERSONAL fundamental values. By commenting on the legality of it, that plays in to the political part of it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Do you have a source for this, is it anecdotal evidence, wishful thinking, projection, or are you spreading another fake news story. By the way: Trump has not sold his assets as you previously claimed.

Ohhh, kinda like when liberals try to get a snide Trump's head to rash gross generalizations? Yeah, you do the same, back your sources and unequivocally when you try to peer into the guys head he is really thinking or planning what you feel he might do and I'll do the same.

Who said anything about appeasing jihadists or "making excuses for the terrorists"?

The left.

I simply explained how treating Islam in general as an evil and Muslims en masse as suspect is going to have seriously negative repercussions on everyone.

And as I have said to you, that's a complete BS analyzation. Apparently, you haven't read up on your Koran lately, but to jihadists, the West are comprised of infidels, we can't make them hate us more than they already do, we are the non-believers, therefore, we are unfit to live or we can convert, i know I'm not, so there goes that plan.....

This is not just some bleeding heart liberal armchair philosophizing.

Sorry, but yes, it is, pure liberal capitulation at its worst.

Experts across the political spectrum (including those in the Bush administration) have noted this.

Who exactly and when were those statements made?

The only ones who don't get this are too much blinded by paranoia, anger, and hatred.

I'm none of the three mentioned, but I am very cautious and careful and I think I have every right to be and that has nothing to do with being racist or being Islamophobic.

Wow, I bet terrorists are shaking in their shoes and will never commit another act now that Trump is in charge.

You know, it's kinda funny when the terrorists are on the other end of the knife or about to be executed, I've seen a few videos and what I can say from actually seeing it on their faces, you are totally and 100% wrong.

Trump is all about ego and bluster. Tough talk,

He should be.

demonizing Muslims, and indiscriminate bombing isn't going to solve any problems.

Oh, here we go, ok. The race card played out, let's look in the drawer......got it! Now we will use the Islamophobic card. Nice one, doubt it will work, but please try it.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Strangerland JAN. 31, 2017 - 03:14PM JST But the difference is that Trump has taken that determination and used it to deny the people, based on their religion.

No. Only from these countries. Same as Obama. If you based on their religion, any Muslim from India, Saudi Arabia or Philippines?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Yes, they were. But the difference is that Trump has taken that determination and used it to deny the people, based on their religion.>

Arent the Christians from these countries also affected? And cant Muslims from 40 other Muslim countries still enter? Have any Muslims in the USA been deported? So while it might affect more people of one religion than another, it cant be religion based there are other factors in place here.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Of course it is impossible to determine a persons internal motivations unless they are stupid enough to say it out loud.

Thank you, so we are both in agreement that it was just speculation then.

You mention fundamental disagreement. The political affiliation of a person is an indicator of their fundamental values.

Sure, but you determined that her motivations were based on who appointed her, and discredit the possibility that it may be based on what she thinks is the right thing to do.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

OK I will meet you in the middle. it is possible that she thinks this is the right thing to do, based on her fundamental values that allowed her to accept apolitical appointee position from a Democratic President. All good now on my side :-)

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Do you have a source for this, is it anecdotal evidence, wishful thinking, projection, or are you spreading another fake news story.

Ohhh, kinda like when...

How is the answer to a question, 'kind of like when...'?

Nice deflection though.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

OK I will meet you in the middle. it is possible that she thinks this is the right thing to do, based on her fundamental values that allowed her to accept apolitical appointee position from a Democratic President.

Fair enough.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Pt Do you have a source for this, is it anecdotal evidence, wishful thinking, projection, or are you spreading another fake news story. By the way: Trump has not sold his assets as you previously claimed.

response from @bass Ohhh, kinda like when liberals try to get a snide Trump's head to rash gross generalizations? Yeah, you do the same, back your sources and unequivocally when you try to peer into the guys head he is really thinking or planning what you feel he might do and I'll do the same.

Something must have happened to your message while it was being sent. Kindly resend; this version makes no sense. Are you acknowledging that Trump has NOT sold his assets?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In a written statement late Monday afternoon, the Trump campaign said the Republican frontrunner wanted a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Trump then goes on to actually implement a ban on as many Muslims as he can (he can't add countries in an executive order, he can only work with existing laws). The Trump supporter's response? "It's not because they are Muslim!!!"

Post-truth©

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Strangerland JAN. 31, 2017 - 03:46PM JST Trump then goes on to actually implement a ban on as many Muslims as he can

Trump: Difficult to prove refugees are Christian

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People don't seem to realise how bad this is. The American Attorney General has been fired.

A ban on green-card holders is completely illegal.

Trump won't be impeached. He holds the House and the Senate.

God help us.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Trump then goes on to actually implement a ban on as many Muslims as he can (he can't add countries in an executive order, he can only work with existing laws).

You call it a ban, so how many Muslims of the 8% in total of the entire Muslim population that this so called ban has blocked and I mean, No chance of EVER entering the United States? Also what about the other 44 Muslim countries that aren't affected by this so called ban?

The Trump supporter's response? "It's not because they are Muslim!!!"

It's because they come from Muslim countries that have a history of wanting to kill us and the west. What makes me smile about all this, now the liberals are powerless to do anything and Trump can unilaterally call, block or deny their entry and it's about time.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

From Wikipedia: "Bin Laden's overall strategy for achieving his goals against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and United States was to lure them into a long war of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender."

Now demonising Muslims, and acting on this, is playing into the hands of those who would like to step up the asymmetric warfare against the US. These discriminatory actions against Muslims reveals the US for what the Islamists believe it to be; hypocritical and atavistically, or essentially, racist, with nasty Christian overtones of destiny, armageddon and crusade. With just a little more provocation it will expose itself clearly to the world.

I am not saying whether the Islamists' conception is correct or not but Trump is reading from a script written for him by Bin Laden. Trump and Bin Laden seem like they were made for each other. But the hope that Bin Laden had was that the US would eventually bleed itself dry of money and good will with endless war and security measures. I think the good will it once had was long ago spent by Bush Jr and the world is pretty much indifferent to any sock in the eye the US gets. But Trump is not helping on that score either.

You see, in the end, the US is just like any other country. It is not special. And Bin Laden and Bush Jr helped persuade us of that. It can only persuade others through reward or punishment. It no longer inspires anyone; at least no one who is educated. The US was a good idea at the time. But it has failed to live up to its lofty ideals again and again.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I fully agree. But when a poster sends fake news like this:

TV news is reporting here this morning that the shooters were both Syrian "refugees" who entered Canada just over a week ago. . .

they need to be called out.

Yes, I agree. However, the poster I was quoting did not send any fake news. They just asked a question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You call it a ban, so how many Muslims of the 8% in total of the entire Muslim population that this so called ban has blocked and I mean, No chance of EVER entering the United States?

Unfortunately for Trump, executive orders cannot be used to create new laws, only to extend existing laws. I'm pretty confident he would have included every Muslim country with which he doesn't have deep financial ties that he could, if he could have. But he was limited to finding whatever he could in existing laws.

So after Trump says Muslims should be put under a temporary ban, and then implements such a ban, his team says that it's not because they were Muslim. How can they call their coach a liar like that?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Unless they're from Syria, eh?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass

Also what about the other 44 Muslim countries that aren't affected by this so called ban?

Well, the largest ones excluded from the list are all places where Trump has business ties. That must be a coincidence. We all know that Trump is a man of God, of honor, of principle, or public service.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

her decision was politically motivated. your fired and 90% of americans agree with trump. http://yournewswire.com/npr-25-million-fake-clinton-votes/

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

That rushed Executive Order made everyone unprepared, even Trump's head of Homeland Security that's charged with enforcing the order but who wasn't let known about it until the press was told about it.

So the workers in the airports didn't even get a manual what to do with the different situations, and that caused the confusions and long detainments with no information in the airports (y'know like how going to a store's customer service and being told they don't know what's going on)

It didn't help that the White House said that even Green Card holders from those 7 countries won't be let in, then later saying that the Green Card holders will still be let in with extra vetting. So that confused the port workers even more

(Also, the 9/11 terrorists came from 4 countries - Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, and UAE - none of those countries are on the ban list)

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Well, the largest ones excluded from the list are all places where Trump has business ties. That must be a coincidence.

He has business dealings with Yemen??

We all know that Trump is a man of God, of honor, of principle, or public service.

Maybe, so would Obama be then probably in the same category?

That rushed Executive Order made everyone unprepared, even Trump's head of Homeland Security that's charged with enforcing the order but who wasn't let known about it until the press was told about it.

Like John Spicer said, that just defeats the purpose to let the media know what the presidents plans are going to be when talking about combating terrorism or even in this case imposing a temporary ban.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

He has business dealings with Yemen??

I said excluded from the ban. Please read more carefully.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I said excluded from the ban. Please read more carefully.

Sorry, been a long day, gotta work too. How about Indonesia or Qatar?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Welcome to politics Donnie boy. Only a week or two in and you're already making stupid choices. You may have thought you would have absolute power but the system will keep you in check (and get rid of you if necessary) if you continue to do stupid things that are unconstitutional and illegal.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"What incompetent, bigoted cowards Trump, Bannon, and their supporters are."

Oh my... we're not only deplorable and irredeemable, now we're incompetent,bigoted cowards! Keep it classy, Crazy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That rushed Executive Order made everyone unprepared, even Trump's head of Homeland Security that's charged with enforcing the order but who wasn't let known about it until the press was told about it.

Like John Spicer said, that just defeats the purpose to let the media know what the presidents plans are going to be when talking about combating terrorism or even in this case imposing a temporary ban.

Still doesn't explain why his head of Homeland Security didn't even get a heads up - and he's the one that's in charge of enforcing it - that's not a good way to do it

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It's legal. Plus 57% of Americans approve of these temporary travel restrictions.

"Welcome to politics Donnie boy. Only a week or two in and you're already making stupid choices"

That was Obama.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How about Indonesia or Qatar?

Trump has extensive dealings in Indonesia and has expressed interest in Qatar.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Wolfpack

The American people need to see the Lefts extremism on television every night.

Yeah, I felt that I have to laugh... you don't have any idea what is left extremism...the "left" in the U.S. is very mild compared with the real left, much less the "extreme" left

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I'm amazed at how there are still supporters of this measure without considering that the countries responsible for the attacks are not in the list...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@frontandcenter: Wolfpack - there was always a firm vetting procedure in place under Obama. "Common sense" is not acting in an arbitrary way and alienating the vast majority of the world's muslims

The vast majority of the worlds Muslims do not live in the three terrorist sponsoring nations that Obama identified for travel restrictions and Trump later applied further restrictions until such time as the vetting process can be reviewed and strengthened.

US citizens are more likely to face terrorist threats as a consequence of this unjust ban than they would have been if the existing safeguards had continued to be applied.

Really? Attempts to protect the nation from terrorism is going to motivate ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to try harder to kill Americans? By this logic America should drop all of it's anti-terrorist efforts in order to placate the Islamists. How do you explain the fact that allowing unfettered immigration from these nations somehow didn't prevent 9/11, or Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando, etc.?

"Common sense" is that the right to bear arms under the constitution (obviously only meant to apply in the revolutionary era, not the modern day) is FAR less important than maintaining the principles of liberty, democracy and equality before the law that the constitution upholds.

I do not agree that it is obvious that the right to bear arms applied only to 18th century America. There are tens of millions of citizens living in rural areas where firearms are an important part of live and the culture. Regardless, if the right to bear arms is outdated the Constitution provides for an amendment process to modify the law. Without a Constitutional amendment the Left merely seeks to make a mockery of the rule of law itself. If the Constitution can be overturned that easily then it is meaningless and no basic rights are safe.

@plasticmonkey: Well, the largest ones excluded from the list are all places where Trump has business ties.

Care to provide details or is this just fake news?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Trump has extensive dealings in Indonesia and has expressed interest in Qatar.

Ok, so now that he's president, how is that in your personal opinion a bad thing? Please I enjoy hearing conspiracy theories early in the morning before breakfast.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bass

It's called a conflict of interest and the Trumpet seems to have such conflicts with many countries because of his dodgy business dealings. He's trying his best to hide them but just wait and see. The truth will come out and DJT will spend his 4 years (if he makes it that far) as POTUS tied up in litigation and court cases!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The vast majority of the worlds Muslims do not live in the three terrorist sponsoring nations that Obama identified for travel restrictions

And the vast majority of the world's Muslims are not terrorists.

Attempts to protect the nation from terrorism is going to motivate ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to try harder to kill Americans?

Not exactly. This action, whether you agree whether it's true or not, has the appearance to the world's Muslims as being an anti-Muslim ban. This further builds the us vs. them feeling, and makes it look like America has a war on Islam. This anti-Muslim sentiment just gives more reason to those already on the edge, to move to extremism. They may not go with the extremists with the initial intention of 'lets kill Americans', but once they're radicalized, it's not that much further a step.

Alienating the exact group whose support is needed to deal with this problem is a pretty stupid move.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

How do you explain the fact that allowing unfettered immigration from these nations somehow didn't prevent 9/11, or Fort Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando

That's an easy one. None of the people involved in any of those incidents was an immigrant from one of the 7 countries targeted by Trump.

The 9/11 terrorists were mainly from Saudi Arabia, also Egypt, Lebanon and I think UAE. They all had visas, none of them was an 'immigrant'.

The Fort Hood shooting was carried out by an American-born US citizen of Palestinian descent. No connection with any of the seven countries. The DoD classified his actions as 'workplace violence', not terrorism.

The San Bernardino shooting was carried out by a married couple; he was an American-born US citizen of Pakistani descent, she was a lawful permanent resident of the US of Pakistani descent who moved to Saudi Arabia as a toddler. Again, no connection with any of the seven countries.

The perpetrator of the Orlando nightclub attack was born in New York to Afghani parents. Again no connection with any of the seven countries. He had a firearms license, can't get more all-American than that. (He was also known to have violent tendencies, was physically abusive to his first wife who described him as 'mentally unstable, mentally ill' and 'obviously disturbed' - yet the Second Amendment got him enough firepower to kill or injure over one hundred people. Methinks Trump is looking in the wrong place to stop violence in America.

Please explain how you think 'allowing unfettered immigration from these nations' was in any way connected to 9/11, Fort Hood, San Bernardino or Orlando. Because I don't see it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

WolfpackFEB. 01, 2017 - 07:34AM JST

Attempts to protect the nation from terrorism is going to motivate ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to try harder to kill Americans?

I expect they will if they're misguided and stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only true substance I've noticed in comments is lemmings on the left have no idea how to solve any issue which is far too complex for them to understand. Apathetic mantra. Ignore it. Maybe it will just go away... dress like a vagina and hope you never have to explain it to your kids how you encourage firebombing as an expression of 'free speech' at the expense of working democracy and citizenry that actually have jobs. Bottom line, Trump WILL succeed... deal with it whiner.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I love the Liberal Cucks on this site that moan and harp about Trump like the Leftist Regressives that have destroyed their home countries. Open your eyes people. There is a REASON he won and that reason is that the majority, the SILENT working majority that actually care about the future of the Western world, voted him in. Hopefully he accomplishes everything that campaigned for during the election.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Since when us the USA the western world, you guys and gals are just one country in it.

You don't get to decide the future nor are you the leader.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

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