US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

Catfish - "banning countries"?

I know what you mean, however. But, and that is a paramount of a but:

how can people claim the right to move where-ever they want, if the land they walk over, and into, already has seen other people claiming it, settling on it, building communities, civilizations, societies there? How can you demand that any foreigner nevertheless has claim for all this and claim for being let in, even if the members of this all are against it and do not want him?

You declare the residents who themselves and whose forefathers have build the place and seeded the things they now enjoy the fruits of, as slaves and receivers of commands of foreigners. You violate one of the most basic "human rights there that natural law does know and bases on.

If a foreigner from the street knocks on your door and tells you he demands that you let him into your household and into the place you live in, house or appartment, do you think you must comply? If you are of sane mind, of course you would say No. You might even call yourself a leftist - but still most likely woudl also argue with your right to own private property.

There are two forms of ethics and morals. The one is demanding and thinks in absolutes. This is what currently disrupts thinking and arguing and poltics in the Wetsern world. The other form of ethics and morals is basing on realities laid out before your eyes. It leads not to utopistic fantasies that are unable to be fulfilled, but to realism and pragmatism. The first moral is ideology-based. The second moral is reality-based.

And that makes all the difference. Plus it explains why I completeley oppose the current consent on indefinite freedom of unregulated, undiscriminated moevement. Hence, I reject the general asylum laws as they currently stand. They are a crime against human rights of the residential population and the historically grown identity it has build in its living place.

You may acheive the opportnity to ASK whether they let you stay for some time, or forever. And whatever their answer is - you, as the foeeigner coming to their place, have to accept it,NO MATTER WHAT.

Because they do not live for the sake of you, and your interest.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Catfish

So you want to get back to before 1965, and skip the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act?

Yes. Until a proper vetting system is in place. A window of 90 days was issued.


Further, why is it past history can be pulled up to prove one's point yet other history for the matter is summarily dismissed. Immigration has been stopped for a few months by past Presidents with much issue at all. Some how Trump's is different?

[Catfish]

True, but i just do not think Trump will stop that after 90 days, if he has his say. But i think this will all be dealt with at Scotus.

Again, why ban those countries? This is absolutely unnecessary. He could as well have banned Finnland.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Thank you. I was going to shape a reply but you did it better.

why thank you Sir!

just doing my small part.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Again, why ban those countries? This is absolutely unnecessary. He could as well have banned Finnland.

As I understand it the current security situation in those particular countries makes it impossible to properly vet potential immigrants. They just want a chance to review and improve that before continuing to take people from them.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Catfish

True, but i just do not think Trump will stop that after 90 days, if he has his say. But i think this will all be dealt with at Scotus.

Again, why ban those countries? This is absolutely unnecessary. He could as well have banned Finnland.

At this juncture we have to take it a 90 days and see what transpires.

Trump banded these particular countries for the reason I have heard...these countries have a very poor vetting system that needs to be address. Last year it was established that there was large gaps in the vetting system. People were gaining access without much proof of anything.

[Bilge_Rat]

now back to the debate, another good article laying out the reasons why the travel ban is legal:

Robart rejected that position outright. Later, in its emergency brief filed Saturday night with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the government argued that a U.S. District Court judge has no legal right to stop a presidential action in which the president exercised his own constitutional power to conduct foreign policy, as well as power delegated by him to Congress in the area of immigration. The political branches of government have plenary authority over those areas, the government argued, citing cases from 1950, 1952, and 1999:

1. Judicial second-guessing of the president's determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches' plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) ("[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government."). "it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien." Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).

The government brief supported the president's decision on both legal and constitutional grounds, starting with the law. And that starts with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states:

1. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Quoting cases from 2016 and 1977, the Justice Department argued that, specifically in the context of immigration, "the Supreme Court has 'long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.'" "When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive's decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613988

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

As I understand it the current security situation in those particular countries makes it impossible to properly vet potential immigrants. They just want a chance to review and improve that before continuing to take people from them.

Bingo!


Congrats to the Pats.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

now back to the debate

Oh NOW you want to get back on topic, after I called you out for your cheap dirt-tactics, lies and after debunking your claims? Isn't THAT convenient!

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Oh NOW you want to get back on topic, after I called you out for your cheap dirt-tactics, lies and after debunking your claims? Isn't THAT convenient!

Do you realise how ridiculous you are acting?

How old are you anyway.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Anyways, true, that post of mine sure was ot and thereby is derailing. However, the same can be said about posters that waste everyone's time by
a) not even reading what the opponent puts down yet
b) wipes it away as nonsense or evil liberal propaganda while
c) linking to a 'source' that clearly is propaganda (for his side, of course, so it's cool)

I agree. Unfortunately the posts in question are indeed talking about the topic, nonsense or not.

That won't move any topic forward either and I feel when someone continuously uses this tactic - with the sole purpose of FIGHTING instead of discussing - then sorry, it should be considered inflammatory, derailing and since it's loaded with attacks on everyone else, insulting, and that the mod tram should act.

Again I agree. The problem is that as long as the person in question is expressing his opinions on the same subject it isn't derailing, and as long as the poster isn't breaking the forum rules as written, any action along those lines must be left to the Admin, who is not me.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Do you realise how ridiculous you are acting?

How old are you anyway.

The "maturity card" doesn't play well when you are the one who:

A) started this ot debate
B) made multiple false claims about me
C) uses cheap tactics to undermine your opponents credibility and
D) pulls out of the discussion under the pretense of wanting to return to topic just after being called out/debunked.

Therefore, I don't see how I am the one acting immature, I simply defend myself against your baseless accusations.

Again you tried a cheap trick, again I won't fall for it. No worries though, big boss did and that's all that matters.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

The "maturity card" doesn't play well when you are the one who:

A) started this ot debate

no, you are the one who started the debate about Yubba. If you are raising the topic of the posting style of another member, then your posting style becomes fair game.

B) made multiple false claims about me

no, I quoted your posts which show to everyone that my claims were accurate.

C) uses cheap tactics to undermine your opponents credibility and

well honestly at this point, you are doing that all by yourself.

D) pulls out of the discussion under the pretense of wanting to return to topic just after being called out/debunked.

which discussion exactly? You call out Yubba for not debating correctly and when I post threads about U.S. politics, you say I am pulling out of the discussion? The thread title is "U.S. politics", not "Nippelspanner's posting style"

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

no, you are the one who started the debate about Yubba. If you are raising the topic of the posting style of another member, then your posting style becomes fair game.

I was referring to the debate between you and me.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

no, I quoted your posts which show to everyone that my claims were accurate.

No. You claimed I can't even state why I despise trump and to "prove" this you quoted one of my posts where I didn't state anything specific, yet you ignored posts where I did and even after I quoted myself, you ignore it. How very convenient to only see what you want, I guess.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

well honestly at this point, you are doing that all by yourself.

Ah yes, sure, another cheap shot.
I debunked your nasty claims, not sure how that undermines my credibility. It only shows how cheap you are, Having to resent to these kind of debate tactics.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

which discussion exactly? You call out Yubba for not debating correctly and when I post threads about U.S. politics, you say I am pulling out of the discussion? The thread title is "U.S. politics", not "Nippelspanner's posting style"

Oh pleeeeaseee this is getting unbearable.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

no, you are the one who started the debate about Yubba. If you are raising the topic of the posting style of another member, then your posting style becomes fair game.


which discussion exactly? You call out Yubba for not debating correctly and when I post threads about U.S. politics, you say I am pulling out of the discussion? The thread title is "U.S. politics", not "Nippelspanner's posting style"

Bilge Rat this is not directed at you keep up the good fight

Argueing over little ole me, you're going to make me blush,, My style of debating is useing Saul Alinky's rule book for radicals,, in reverse, makes the lefts heads spin, if I make a statement I try to put a link up to back what I say,, If any want to throw around wild acquisitions and see if they'll stick,, I'll call you on it and you better be able to back it up. I also like your carefully crafted questions,, crafted to get the answer you desire, since you can't accept the truth, you want to play I'm your huckleberry
and history is mostly against you that's why you want to rewrite it, and have the media in your back pocket to cover for the lefts misdeeds ,, well it ain't conservatives out there rioting or funding it,, clean up your own house before you criticize another,, because I'll use it against you.,, So does any want to show me where in the Constitution where a sitting president can pick and choose what Laws he is going to enforce or not,, and pick and choose who they'll apply to,, also show me who or what people are above the law,,, we wouldn't be in this mess if our would be rulers abided to the oath of office,,, they were sent there to serve us not for We the People to serve them ,,, and that's why Trump won..the Democrat progressive left suffers from DDD syndrome that is,,, Denial,,Deflection and Deception..