"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one in debate forums"

[sirs]

Now...about this latest Hawaiian Judge to squelch Trump's latest EO regarding a TEMPORARY travel ban from just a FEW countries, that are predominantly Muslim.....This ruling is wrong, on so many levels.  The jist of the ruling is that the Judge proclaims that although there's no actual language that specifcally bans anyone based on their religion, the apparent jist of the EO does indeed apparently ban folks from entering this country, based on their religion. 

Let's put away the Trump hatred mindset for a few moments and deal with present Constitutional guidelines and legal precedent. 

1) Let's pretend that the Judge is exactly correct....that he was able to read the mind of Trump, and ascertain the REAL reason for the EO, that of banning Muslims from entering this country, simply because they're Muslim.  Guess what.....the Constitution gives him precisely that authority.  Constitutional protections, which includes religious protections, ONLY APPLIES TO AMERICANS, AS IN LEGAL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.  It does NOT apply to ANYONE NOT of this country, which includes ANY person, or ANY religion.  That's egregious error #1

2) The Judge even concedes that there is no language that specifically bans anyone from this country, based on their religion.  However the Judge apparently knows how nefarious Trump is, and has decided to read into the EO, something that simply isn't there.  A gross overstepping of Judicial authority.  That's egregious error #2

3) If this was a supposed ban on all Muslims, it would have included ALL Muslim countries, and not just those that just happen to also be designated terrorist havens/training grounds, by the PREVIOUS Administration  Egregious error #3

4) Lastly, we have PRECEDENT....as in previous presidents have performed precisely that, which Trump is trying to do...impose a TEMPORARY BAN on specific locations, as in countries, NOT religions.  Jimmy Carter imposed a ban on Iranian immigrants.  Where was the outrage??  The beloved FDR, one of the Left's icons, imposed a ban on even Jewish refugees, for fear of Nazi spies hiding among them.  Fricken error #4

[Christians4LessGvt]

great summary!

[kimba1]

actually #4 is the very reason not to do it . precedents can be used as examples to avoid . example alot of those jewish refugee died shortly afterwards .

[sirs]

That could be a rationalizion for not doing it, but its not founded in anything legal or constitutional, which is the point.  Who knows how many Americans might have died, if Nazis were able to infiltrate under the guise of "refugees".  That's the point....We were at war then, we are at war now. 

The Constitution gives the President precisely this power.  It's ok for people to not like Trump or the policies he advocates.  But he's well within his legal right to impose such a temporary ban, regardless of how others might find it offensive, or mean, or "discriminatory".  People wanting to come here do NOT have religious freedom protections.  We, as a sovereign nation, get to decide.  And the President, right or wrong, decided that people from some regions of the world should have a stop sign applied....just like when Carter imposed his temporary ban, and not a whiff of condemnation

[kimba1]

not really sure it`s not founded in anything legal or constitutional. precedents can be used as examples it should be not implemented. my concern is which is more harmful for the country the ban or not to ban.  Yes we are at war but this a global situation and will this action have repercussions. it`s seems everything is connection to some past actions. I`m not saying we shouldn`t ban refugee but at the very least if they die from this we may get repercussions. so far previous bans seem to have no notable impacts but we live in a more public world.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Kimba....I am just curious
how many immigrants legal or illegal would you allow into this country?
we already allow more than anyone else in the world
and Trump is demonized to just try and temper it a bit
so I am just curious...how many would you allow in if it were up to you?
would you allow 10 million next year? 50 million next year? 100 million? 200 million? 300 million? 500 million?
obviously hundreds of millions of people are in bad situations all over the globe
but how many can we allow in?
is there any amount that would be too many?

[kimba1]

I would double the existing legal limit and cut out all those who came illegaly with a case by case exceptions. To me america has always benefit from immigration legal or not. Demand has driven people here not just problems from all over the world. I wouldn't set a limit until businesses itself don't want immigrants. Judging by the high demand to increase the number h-1B visa it'll be a long while.

Illegals is serious concern for me due the lack of information people have about them . A significant number of them are exploited involuntarily and people here makes excuses not deal with them. California has the largest human trafficking problem in the country. Deportation will not solve it. Remember this require demand to exist.

[sirs]

The issue again for me Kimba is legal/Constitutional.  People who want to come here have no constitutional protections.  Explointed or not, people who come here illegally, should have ZERO support in American tax dollars.  And those here who hire illegal immigrants, thus pushing the demand, absolutely should have the heavy hand of Federal justice come down on them, and then watch how fast that demand nosedives. 

But until we have some rational control of our own fricken border, none of what we want as far as legal immigrants matter

[kimba1]

Exploited is a exception since the freeloader charge is used for the bulk of the reason illegals should not be here and that definately weight in the enforcement of laws.

[sirs]

The "freeloader" charge is so low on the totem poll of why folks like myself are so adamant about enforcing our immigration laws.  MOST folks that come here illegally, work damn hard....and its that reason that keeps wages down so low, because they are exploited for that purpose. 

Border enforcement 1st.....and let's refer to it as "comprehensive" border enforcement
- a wall
- e-verify implimentation
- deportation of violent criminal illegal immigrants
- staunch prosecution of businesses that actively hire illegal immigrants

THEN, we can start overhauling the actual immigration process

[Christians4LessGvt]

Freeloader is only part of the reason...

Do we really need tens of millions more people here?

Why?

Like SIRS says they drive down wages for blue collar Americans

Millions more are additional burdens on our infrastructure, our schools, our hospitals, our roads, our environment , etc..etc..

Why?

Because the one-world globalists (anti America First) want an "EU" type situation for North America.

One World - Globalism is a global welfare system that has roots in colonial guilt.

[kimba1]

The fact their mainly here by demand will explain a need exist and i highly question they are the main cause of low wages. In fact i claim most of the people who want minimum wages to stay low blame immigrants are the cause.

Even the claim they as take a strain on infrastructure in questionable since many pay sales taxes and take less service than legal citizens. We only hear the exceptions which is whole lot less than the majority. We're taking about people who never want to in the public.

Minimum wages require state involvement which means it nornally lags behind cost of living. Businesses always has the power to pay more but most do not and often complain when it eventually goes up.

[Plane]

  If we really need them we should honor their arrival and not make them sneak in .

   There needs to be a reasonable way to admit enough legal aliens and legal immigrants to match the need.

    So , who measures the need?

[sirs]

I think the "need" here is how many Democrats need to secure subsequent Presidential election....which is why you'll never get any kind of ceiling as to the number that should be allowed in

[kimba1]

I dont doubt thats why democratic politician support this matter. But find it poorly done but then as a civil servant i rarely give compliments that anyone does thier job well.