World peace, answer the important question. Have you ever had sex with someone above a four? Have you had sex at all?
You prefer to continuing dependence on middle Eastern oil vs oil from north american sources.
And you condemned Obama did you. Did you condemn his illegal war in Yemen? Did you condemn him supporting ISIS in Syria and Libya? Did you condemn him backing a civil war which has killed millions and caused this refugee crisis all so an oil pipeline could be built?
Did you do all that? If so, props to you.
It is obviously very controversial and open to interpretation but the legality of it looks to be in order. I seriously doubt the executive branch, no matter how inept they seem, would sign this without having a pretty bulletproof defense. They would have known they were opening themselves up to a wave of lawsuits.
ACLU took the bait. Might be thrown out by Monday.
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
"(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible."
yeah I would tell that commie to eat rocks... Im sure his mansion could hold quite a few goat Fing moslums
So the CEO of AirBNB is aiding and abetting criminals?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
It's not dependence when you have a choice dipshit. I'm not acknowledging the rest of that shit. Republican policy set those wheels in motion.
And your "supported Isis" comments make you sound like a hack.
But keep in mind, this is the least experienced executive branch we have probably ever had. Obama was a constitutional lawyer and had executive orders shot down by courts, as have most presidents, so I expect this administration will have plenty shot down too since they are quite honestly learning on the job.
Plus, it is open to interpretation, but it seems like Trump would have to provide evidence for this part An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible."
ANd considering none of the countries he banned have actually committed acts of terror on US soil, I think he would have to find some strong evidence to indicate that part is true.
If you haven't figured it out, that's what they do here.. They talk a bunch of shit for their buddies but when anyone opposing their views speaks up, they basically put their fingers in their ears and stick out their tongues.
It's pointless to try to have a discussion with them. They're only here to try to impress their little group with how obnoxiously Republican they can be.
Ah, denial, facts are inconvenient, must be nice.
Like I suspected, this is just an excuse to hate on Trump. You could really care less about the middle East.
In fairness to xo, he can have a conversation, and I dont think he is a Republican. We all have our moments, on here including me, but I dont put him in the category as some of the others who cant have a decent discussion by any means.
oh the mental gymnastics libtards go thru in their quest for a 'fact'
so your stupid prograrded arse is fine with terrorism NOT on US soil?
Which is why the only countries named were done so by the State Department and other agencies.
He didn't label these countries and their citizens as a threat. He will defer to the information that was provided to him upon taking office.
It won't hold up as a "Muslim ban" which is apparently where the ACLU went with it. I mean, how can it? The legislation doesn't mention religion and the most populous Muslim countries are not even included in the temporary freeze.
I don't see how that argument holds water but I'm not a constitutional lawyer either.
But there is a Muslim aspect to hit. Syrian Christians and Jews are still allowed (at least Syrian, not sure if that applies to all countries). It says that people of minority faiths are still welcome. I agree, it isnt an outright ban on all Muslims, but it is targeting Muslims from these areas.
And you come along to further cement my point with your memes. Thanks, GoT.
should have been a community organizer
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
