Trump's Muslim immigration ban includes green card holders

[Iroscato]

The courts appear to have somewhat found their balls: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/28/144270...ration-ban

The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay halting President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the US from seven majority-Muslim countries tonight, following widespread protests at airports around the country.

The court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the ACLU on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, who were denied entry to the US upon landing at JFK airport in New York City and detained indefinitely by Customs and Border Patrol. Darweesh spent a decade working for the United States military in Iraq as an interpreter and engineer and had been granted an entry visa after background checks; Alshawi had been granted a visa in order to join his wife and son who are already permanent residents of the US after their similar service with the US military.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I've never said that I'm religious in any manner.  99% of my posts about religions are critical.  They are all BS without exception but I think I understand them more than most people on this forum.  

The original post question didn't ask if Trump's actions were good and beneficial.  It asked if they were legal.  I replied that they were legal and gave supporting reasons why they are legal.  I never said that they were "good".  

If my username was "Chicken Little" it wouldn't mean that I'm a chicken and little.  

BTW, not one person who has been yapping about this has cited any specific law that prohibits Trump's action.  Why don't you work on that for a few minutes?

Bold is mine.

A law passed by the US Congress in 1965 and upheld by the courts thereafter states: no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

Richard Nixon once said "if the president does it, it's not illegal." And we all know how that story ended.

Well, see that's all you had to do in the first place.  It'll be interesting to see if Trump will get Congress to rescind that law.  But the law might only apply to those countries that we have diplomatic relations with so it's possible that we might have to end diplomatic relations with those countries.

[Tiberius]

Thank goodness. A federal court blocked his order. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...nationwide

[Iroscato]

If someone like WoG - currently serving as a test subject in an experiment to see if a human being can function with a bag of elephant semen in place of a brain - is for this ban, then I consider it my solemn duty to be as firmly against it as I possibly can be.

[Amarok]

Bold is mine.

A law passed by the US Congress in 1965 and upheld by the courts thereafter states: no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

Richard Nixon once said "if the president does it, it's not illegal." And we all know how that story ended.

Well, see that's all you had to do in the first place.  It'll be interesting to see if Trump will get Congress to rescind that law.  But the law might only apply to those countries that we have diplomatic relations with so it's possible that we might have to end diplomatic relations with those countries.

1. We did idiot

2. It doesn't apply just to countries the U.S has relations with

3. He will try and he will fail

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I'll bet that they are working the SCOTUS right now to get them to support Trump's EO. And remember, his justice will soon be on the job.

[Seraphina]

How ironic that we're on a forum with many atheists and non-believers of all stripes who are decrying illegal and immoral actions against ordinary Muslims yet you, who I assume is religious based on your username, seem to be perfectly fine with these same illegal and immoral actions against other religious people. Says it all right there.

I've never said that I'm religious in any manner.  99% of my posts about religions are critical.  They are all BS without exception but I think I understand them more than most people on this forum.  

The original post question didn't ask if Trump's actions were good and beneficial.  It asked if they were legal.  I replied that they were legal and gave supporting reasons why they are legal.  I never said that they were "good".  

If my username was "Chicken Little" it wouldn't mean that I'm a chicken and little.  

Fair enough, my bad.

[Tiberius]

I'll bet that they are working the SCOTUS right now to get them to support Trump's EO. And remember, his justice will soon be on the job.

That probably won't matter. Remember the replacement is for a conservative justice. Currently the court is actually more liberal, especially in civil rights matters (Anthony Kennedy often sides with the liberal wing in civil rights cases).

[chimp3]

I think we should ban skinheads and klansmen until we "know whats going on". What nation can we deport Dylan Roof to?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If someone like WoG - currently serving as a test subject in an experiment to see if a human being can function with a bag of elephant semen in place of a brain - is for this ban, then I consider it my solemn duty to be as firmly against it as I possibly can be.

That's a blatant personal attack.  Shame on you.

Support your arguments with facts or express them as opinions but layoff the flaming personal insults.  We are all supposed to be adults.