[quote]The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Saturday sued the Trump administration on behalf of two men who were detained at an airport while traveling back to the U.S. because of President Trump's immigration crackdown.
The suit was filed on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq, two men from Iraq who were detained and threatened with deportation shortly after arriving at New York’s Kennedy International Airport on Friday, hours after Trump's executive order was signed.
“President Trump's war on equality is already taking a terrible human toll,” ACLU president Omar Jadwat said in a statement. “This ban cannot be allowed to continue.”[/quote]
[URL="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316676-legal-groups-file-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-amid-refugee"]The Hill[/URL]
[URL="https://www.aclu.org/"]Like what they're doing? Please consider donating![/URL]
Good. I'm glad they're suing to fight this fascist.
More people need to start fighting against him
Maybe they could even bring him down eventually
The fact the ACLU is suing him one week into his presidency tells me he's probably not going to get the full 4 years.
Good. Trump and his supports need to learn they can't get away with all their extremist views. I hope the ACLU wins.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51741660]The fact the ACLU is suing him one week into his presidency tells me he's probably not going to get the full 4 years.[/QUOTE]
I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51741660]The fact the ACLU is suing him one week into his presidency tells me he's probably not going to get the full 4 years.[/QUOTE]
He'll make it. But at least people can say they didn't swallow the stupidity without a protest.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
No, you cannot sit down on this.
Don't be a turtle, don't hide in your shell.
If I was an American I would be fighting this.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
This is a mindset that allows injustices to go unpunished and criminals to ruin the lives of others while themselves running free.
It is your duty, both to yourself and to your fellow citizens, to fight back and resist this blatant violation of civil rights. If we do not fight an attack on one minority, we roll over for a certain attack on ourselves in the future.
The people are not as complacent as you'd believe, as they will be directly affected. Did you witness the absolutely massive turnout for the Womens' March just a few days ago?
Even if most end up relatively complacent, you're not helping at all by joining those same spineless masses- you are only contributing to your own(and their own) demise.
I don't understand how one can simply witness something like this and subsequently bend over backwards to let it happen.
Use the rights and power you have been given, send messages to your representatives, rile up your community, start a movement! [B]Use these opportunities that you hold while you still have them.[/B]
Im not even american but sweet Jesus how am I already tired of this orange
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
Don't worry man, I know everyone said Trump couldn't win but I really can't see him getting 8 years. His personality, his lack of morals, his cabinet just spells shitshow. The public despise this man and he simply doesn't care, the media are completely at war with him and he couldn't give two shits. He's going to be a fucking awful president. Hell, just remember he lost the popular vote to the worst possibly candidate the DNC put out against him and that's before he got to do all the horrible shit he's
going to do. He's done. America is getting more liberal and the hard right GOP is going put people out to vote in droves.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
Fuck this defeatist nonsense, it's this exact kind of complacency that stands to give the man a free ride towards cementing power and becoming a dictator in every sense of the word
It's not going to be an instantly tangible result, but the people have far more power than you think
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
cowardice has never achieved anything
-
Really hope this gets rushed through the courts before people's lives get too fucked.
Good. I hope this is the first of many, many harsh pressures put on him. Get him the fuck out of the office.
Good. It's [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0"]illegal[/URL] under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Bring that shit to the Supreme Court and crush his bullshit.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51741993]Good. It's [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0"]illegal[/URL] under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Bring that shit to the Supreme Court and crush his bullshit.[/QUOTE]
he's putting up a supreme court judge next week.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51742045]he's putting up a supreme court judge next week.[/QUOTE]
Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kennedy would [I]absolutely[/I] vote against this. That would leave Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Trump's appointee.
There's clear precedent. Our Supreme Court Justices are educated on this kind of stuff. Even if Trump's appointee is unbelievably conservative, in all likelihood, depending on if Ginsburg keels over or not, this will be halted once it hits the Supreme Court. They're experts, unlike Trump, and regardless of their political affiliation, they can recognize the precedent already established and rescind the ban.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51741993]Good. It's [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0"]illegal[/URL] under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Bring that shit to the Supreme Court and crush his bullshit.[/QUOTE]
"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.” - Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
[url]http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/on-trial-lawsuits-against-trump-on-muslim-immigration-ban-will-fail-fast/[/url]
Amended version banned a quota version of this.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51742099]Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kennedy would [I]absolutely[/I] vote against this. That would leave Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Trump's appointee.
There's clear precedent. Our Supreme Court Justices are educated on this kind of stuff. Even if Trump's appointee is unbelievably conservative, in all likelihood, depending on if Ginsburg keels over or not, this will be halted once it hits the Supreme Court. They're experts, unlike Trump, and regardless of their political affiliation, they can recognize the precedent already established and rescind the ban.[/QUOTE]
Is making an unconstitutional executive order that strips rights away from ethnic or religious minorities considered a criminal offense worthy of impeachment?
[editline]28th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51742130]"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.” - Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
[url]http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/on-trial-lawsuits-against-trump-on-muslim-immigration-ban-will-fail-fast/[/url]
Amended version banned a quota version of this.[/QUOTE]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 came after the passage you're referencing (1952), so would it not supersede this particular ruling?
I'm not totally familiar with this, so please educate me on it. If this is [B]isn't[/B] unconstitutional, it sure as hell should be. You cannot discriminate against a class of people on the basis of their religious beliefs. That flies counter to one of the single most important founding beliefs of the United States.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51742146]Is making an unconstitutional executive order that strips rights away from ethnic or religious minorities considered a criminal offense worthy of impeachment?
[editline]28th January 2017[/editline]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 came after the passage you're referencing (1952), so would it not supersede this particular ruling?
I'm not totally familiar with this, so please educate me on it. If this is [B]isn't[/B] unconstitutional, it sure as hell should be. You cannot discriminate against a class of people on the basis of their religious beliefs. That flies counter to one of the single most important founding beliefs of the United States.[/QUOTE]
Post above says it's constitutional.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51742146]Is making an unconstitutional executive order that strips rights away from ethnic or religious minorities considered a criminal offense worthy of impeachment?[/QUOTE]
No, impeachment is basically indictment, and requires committing a crime. An unconstitutional executive order isn't [I]criminal[/I], as far as I know. Could be wrong, hard to find info about that. I'd assume it isn't grounds for impeachment, though.
But treason is a crime, so once those Russian ties get discovered and released, I'm almost certain you'll see a House member propose impeachment proceedings.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51742146]Is making an unconstitutional executive order that strips rights away from ethnic or religious minorities considered a criminal offense worthy of impeachment?
[editline]28th January 2017[/editline]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 came after the passage you're referencing (1952), so would it not supersede this particular ruling?
I'm not totally familiar with this, so please educate me on it. If this is [B]isn't[/B] unconstitutional, it sure as hell should be. You cannot discriminate against a class of people on the basis of their religious beliefs. That flies counter to one of the single most important founding beliefs of the United States.[/QUOTE]
It banned a Quota system in which only a certain number of immigrants could be allowed of different ethnicitys.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51742130]"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.” - Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
[url]http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/on-trial-lawsuits-against-trump-on-muslim-immigration-ban-will-fail-fast/[/url]
Amended version banned a quota version of this.[/QUOTE]
The article points out that the law protects immigrants who qualify for an immigrant visa, with protections for race, sex, and nationality. Trump's travel ban - not even immigration ban - is based on nationality, not religion or terrorist affiliation or refugee status. Trump can ban refugees and muslims (if he can actually find a way to do so), but these restrictions on the basis of nationality are not constitutional. If someone from one of these countries, eligible in every way for an immigrant visa, applied and was denied on the basis of Trump's executive order, I don't see how there aren't grounds to sue. Correct me if I'm mistaken or misreading it, though.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51742200]The article points out that the law protects immigrants who qualify for an immigrant visa, with protections for race, sex, and nationality. Trump's travel ban - not even immigration ban - is based on nationality, not religion or terrorist affiliation or refugee status. Trump can ban refugees and muslims (if he can actually find a way to do so), but these restrictions on the basis of nationality are not constitutional. If someone from one of these countries, eligible in every way for an immigrant visa, applied and was denied on the basis of Trump's executive order, I don't see how there aren't grounds to sue. Correct me if I'm mistaken or misreading it, though.[/QUOTE]
No, you're right. Even British citizens of Iranian origin, American green card holders, are being denied entry into the United States.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51741672]I doubt anything will come of this to be perfectly honest. It's best we just try and ride out the next 8 years as best we can[/QUOTE]
Something will definitely come of it, this is executive overreach. I don't think the supreme court will stand idly by, even the more conservative members wouldn't be on board with this. Democratic members of Congress better raise hell over this.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51742146]Is making an unconstitutional executive order that strips rights away from ethnic or religious minorities considered a criminal offense worthy of impeachment?
[editline]28th January 2017[/editline]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 came after the passage you're referencing (1952), so would it not supersede this particular ruling?
I'm not totally familiar with this, so please educate me on it. If this is [B]isn't[/B] unconstitutional, it sure as hell should be. You cannot discriminate against a class of people on the basis of their religious beliefs. That flies counter to one of the single most important founding beliefs of the United States.[/QUOTE]
Yes it's unconstitutional because it uses two fluid criteria, one of which can only be enforced during time of war, no he can't be impeached for it, yes he can attempt to enforce it for 90 days, yes the IMNA supercedes his precedent because it supercedes the IMNA precedent in '52, but it will likely go to the supreme court before it gets binned permanently.
Meanwhile, north of the border and because I don't think it's worth its own thread by itself
[media]https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/825438460265762816[/media]
[IMG]https://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-canada.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51742578]Meanwhile, north of the border and because I don't think it's worth its own thread by itself
[media]https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/825438460265762816[/media]
[IMG]https://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-canada.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
hey so on a COMPLETELY UNRELATED note is the healthcare in Canada as good as in the UK? completely unrelated question. unrelated. completely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.