US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Per]

Merkel is jealous.

Not really. She is concerned though.

As has been pointed out, the root cause of the European refugee crisis is the US invasion of Iraq, that destabilised the entire region. Most of the ISIS military leadership are former Iraqi officers that became unemployed after the US decided to dissolve the Iraqi armed forces. Yet the US shows no interest in trying to assist those whose lives were wrecked as a result of the mess they created.

Anyone else feeling the world is upside down when Germany stands up for human rights, while the US is ruled by a guy who is all about putting the nation first, frowning at international treaties and wanting to rid the country of a religios minority with roots in the Middle East?

[Per]

I had a chuckle when someone suggest that it was unconstitutional discrimination. Discrimination against who? People who are not in the US. How do they have constitutional rights?

To a varying degree. A number of people who were denied entry to the US after Trump signed that executive order are residents of the USA, and as such have almost the same rights as US citizens. Just heard of a woman who has lived in the US for seven years who was denied entry returning from a one week vacation abroad. Her dog is with a dog sitter, her car is in the airport parking lot. Seriously. WtF?

As I said before, restricting visas is absolutely a lawfull option, but denying people who have all their papers in order entry based on nothing more than their place of birth cannot be right. Especially when we are talking about people holding green cards or student visas and who already live in the US. That is unconstitutional.

[Strangelove]

I had a chuckle when someone suggest that it was unconstitutional discrimination. Discrimination against who? People who are not in the US. How do they have constitutional rights?

To a varying degree. A number of people who were denied entry to the US after Trump signed that executive order are residents of the USA, and as such have almost the same rights as US citizens.

Just heard of a woman who has lived in the US for seven years who was denied entry returning from a one week vacation abroad. Her dog is with a dog sitter, her car is in the airport parking lot. Seriously. WtF?

Right so... deport the dog and confiscate the car?

As I said before, restricting visas is absolutely a lawfull option, but denying people who have all their papers in order entry based on nothing more than their place of birth cannot be right. Especially when we are talking about people holding green cards or student visas and who already live in the US. That is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/135 ... muslim-ban

Candidate Trump was never particularly specific on the policy details of how the Muslim ban would work. But with President-elect Trump set to take office in January, and his pledge to implement the ban on day one now about to be put to the test, the question looms: Will he be able to do it, and if so, how? I put that to several experts on US immigration law. Their answer was unanimous: Trump would be able to implement his ban. In fact, he would be able to do it easily. Congress has already granted wide power to the president to alter immigration rules, so he will not need congressional approval. If the ban is designed properly, it is virtually guaranteed to survive court challenges from liberal advocacy groups determined to derail it.

In 1952, Congress passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It has been amended dozens of times subsequently, and currently exists as a 600-page behemoth with lots of very specific rules.

There is one section, 212(f), that is particularly relevant to the Muslim ban. It sets out criteria for “excludable aliens” — which noncitizens the president can choose, using executive powers, to prevent from entering the United States.

Its wording is exceptionally broad: 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.

Translated from legalese: The president can ban whoever he wants, however long he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

^ that was from a fact-checking liberal site during the election.

Trump is abiding by the law.

Now, I believe his political opponents could try to change the law

... act of Congress requiring 2/3 majority?

(don't care enough to look it up... and can't see it happening anyway)

But you said The Donald was breaking the law... that is false/wrong/untrue.

[Strangelove]

They're not just "slowing down the immigration process" though.
They're fucking with people's lives. Real people. Real lives.

What Presidential Administration ever... has not "fucked with people's lives" in some way?

It's what they do.

Lol Per, you and your Swedish global-warming sour grapes...

[Topper]

It is a 90 day hold on visas, green cards and residents are exempt, as are those with dual citizenship.

0.05% of yesterday's air travelers faced extra scrutiny and most of those were allowed to proceed.

Now if you want to believe the fake news folks and somehow equate protester numbers to the number of folks actually affected........find a shoulder to cry upon.

[Topper]

Think of England

[Strangelove]

^ remember that? turns out to be not fair...

CNN Quietly Releases Updated Pics Showing Trump’s Inaugural Crowd Size Greater than Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Crowd

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01 ... -was-huge/

However, the pictures in the article show the crowd size for Obama when he was speaking during his 2009 inauguration with the crowd from Trump’s inauguration approximately 3 hours before Trump spoke.

CNN’s report was another of their ‘Fake News’ lies (<-see wot Per). The photos used in their post were not comparing apples to apples and President Trump’s Press Secretary pointed this out on Saturday in a special press conference. Trump’s crowd was huge and every bit as big as Obama’s crowd in 2009. Also, in CNN’s article they say that Obama had 1.8 million people in 2009. This is now refuted and is more likely closer to 800,000.

Later CNN’s report was proven false (<-see wot Per) by their own reporting. CNN released a gigapixel of President Trump’s Inauguration and the areas they show as empty in their article from their January 21st report were filled to the brim in their more recent picture which was taken at the time of Trump’s speech during the Inauguration ceremony:

Huge.

CNN held onto these pictures all this time

... while they played up their "Fake News pics" as posted by Per and other suckers everywhere.

Wake up people, CNN (et al) are practicing mind-control on people just like you!

[Strangelove]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-nonciti/

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.

Round em up, punt em over the wall !

[Per]

As I said before, restricting visas is absolutely a lawfull option, but denying people who have all their papers in order entry based on nothing more than their place of birth cannot be right. Especially when we are talking about people holding green cards or student visas and who already live in the US. That is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/135 ... muslim-ban

Candidate Trump was never particularly specific on the policy details of how the Muslim ban would work. But with President-elect Trump set to take office in January, and his pledge to implement the ban on day one now about to be put to the test, the question looms: Will he be able to do it, and if so, how? I put that to several experts on US immigration law. Their answer was unanimous: Trump would be able to implement his ban. In fact, he would be able to do it easily. Congress has already granted wide power to the president to alter immigration rules, so he will not need congressional approval. If the ban is designed properly, it is virtually guaranteed to survive court challenges from liberal advocacy groups determined to derail it.

In 1952, Congress passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It has been amended dozens of times subsequently, and currently exists as a 600-page behemoth with lots of very specific rules.

There is one section, 212(f), that is particularly relevant to the Muslim ban. It sets out criteria for “excludable aliens” — which noncitizens the president can choose, using executive powers, to prevent from entering the United States.

Its wording is exceptionally broad: 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.

Translated from legalese: The president can ban whoever he wants, however long he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

^ that was from a fact-checking liberal site during the election.

Trump is abiding by the law.

Now, I believe his political opponents could try to change the law

... act of Congress requiring 2/3 majority?

(don't care enough to look it up... and can't see it happening anyway)

But you said The Donald was breaking the law... that is false/wrong/untrue.

The New York University Law Review begs to differ.

It is worth taking stock of what has been surveyed and what remains for further exploration. It is clear from each of the areas of constitutional law explored above that aliens do enjoy rights under the Constitution.352 Indeed, this fact is deeply ingrained in this country’s constitutional history as evidenced by the early, landmark cases of Yick Wo and Wong Wing. Even in the realm of immigration regulation, where federal power is at its zenith, the constraints of due pro- cess still temper government action, particularly as the government seeks to remove those once lawfully present in the United States and to detain aliens indefinitely and without individualized justification. That aliens are protected by the nation’s core foundational and gov- erning document says much about Americans’ identity as a nation— deeply cherished rights “inhere in the dignity of the human being,”353 and do not attach only to those with the label of citizen. Madison him- self recognized that the fundamental principles in the Constitution are about respect for all persons, whether or not they are citizens.354 That such rights were recognized early in the nation’s constitutional his- tory—and are still recognized today—merits celebration.

That said, as Madison articulated so long ago, there seems to be a deeply ingrained sense that the increasing closeness of an alien’s ties with the United States should afford greater entitlement to the Constitution’s protections. For this reason, courts do not question a lawful permanent resident’s right to equal protection and due process as well as the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees, even upon return to the United States after time spent abroad. Courts have, however, evidenced greater pause in extending the full panoply of rights to nonimmigrant aliens, and thus, although also entitled to equal protection, this class of aliens can invoke only less stringent scrutiny. In addition, the government may exclude this class of aliens from entry to the United States with guarantee of little else than that they will not be subject to indefinite detention.

http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/defau ... -Moore.pdf

Eventually the legality of Trump's executive order will probably be decided by the SCOTUS, and when this happens, based on earlier rulings, I expect them to find that it is lawful regarding non-residents, but not for lawfully residing immigrants returning from a shorter visit abroad.

[Per]

It is a 90 day hold on visas, green cards and residents are exempt, as are those with dual citizenship.

0.05% of yesterday's air travelers faced extra scrutiny and most of those were allowed to proceed.

Now if you want to believe the fake news folks and somehow equate protester numbers to the number of folks actually affected........find a shoulder to cry upon.

OK, if residents and green card holders are exempt, it is probably constitutional.

There have been many reports on residents being denied entry, but that could be due to the ban taking immediate effect, leading to immigration officers making decisions without having seen the exact wording or getting proper instructions from their superiors.

It's still stupid and discriminatory, and hurts the US internationally, but then it might actually be legal.

[ukcanuck]

^ remember that? turns out to be not fair...

CNN Quietly Releases Updated Pics Showing Trump’s Inaugural Crowd Size Greater than Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Crowd

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01 ... -was-huge/

However, the pictures in the article show the crowd size for Obama when he was speaking during his 2009 inauguration with the crowd from Trump’s inauguration approximately 3 hours before Trump spoke.

CNN’s report was another of their ‘Fake News’ lies (<-see wot Per). The photos used in their post were not comparing apples to apples and President Trump’s Press Secretary pointed this out on Saturday in a special press conference. Trump’s crowd was huge and every bit as big as Obama’s crowd in 2009. Also, in CNN’s article they say that Obama had 1.8 million people in 2009. This is now refuted and is more likely closer to 800,000.

Later CNN’s report was proven false (<-see wot Per) by their own reporting. CNN released a gigapixel of President Trump’s Inauguration and the areas they show as empty in their article from their January 21st report were filled to the brim in their more recent picture which was taken at the time of Trump’s speech during the Inauguration ceremony:

Huge.

CNN held onto these pictures all this time

... while they played up their "Fake News pics" as posted by Per and other suckers everywhere.

Wake up people, CNN (et al) are practicing mind-control on people just like you!

what's kind of funny is that the left has been victimised by this sort of media manipulation for decades.
now it's happening to trump and it's like a revelation..

[Per]

In 1952, Congress passed something called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It has been amended dozens of times subsequently, and currently exists as a 600-page behemoth with lots of very specific rules.

Right, and then they passed another law regarding immigration in 1965, which specifically bans discrimination based on nationality. Many lawyers argue that the wording of the ban may violate this law.

Now, I believe his political opponents could try to change the law

... act of Congress requiring 2/3 majority?

Could very well happen. Even republicans find the ban repugnant.

Here's a joint statement by senators McCain and Graham:

“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

“Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.

“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/ind ... 30F0A77889

And here's Dick Cheney's take on it:

Cheney, a decisive conservative himself, said Monday on The Hugh Hewitt Show that the ban "goes against everything we stand for and believe in."

"I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from," Cheney said on a Monday appearance on the radio show. "A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they were Puritans."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/d ... an-extreme

Not to mention:

Albeit, in all fairness, that was of course before he sold his soul for 30 coins of silver.

Heck, even the pope wants in on this:

You cannot reject refugees and call yourself a Christian
...
“For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, A stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
“I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
“It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help,” said Pope Francis.

http://usuncut.com/news/pope-francis-ca ... christian/

Then again, I have no idea whether Trump does consider himself a Christian or not, so maybe the pope is out for lunch on this.

[Mickey107]

How do you stop Islamic radicalism from killing people around the world, Per?
Would shutting down the entire internet and all social media work?
A well read man like yourself, must have some ideas.

[ukcanuck]

How do you stop Islamic radicalism from killing people around the world, Per?
Would shutting down the entire internet and all social media work?
A well read man like yourself, must have some ideas.

Step one stop bombing Syria and Yemen
Step two stop interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations in the Middle East
Stop supplying Israel with the means to persecute Palestinians
Start helping Palestine to achieve independence.

[Per]

How do you stop Islamic radicalism from killing people around the world, Per?
Would shutting down the entire internet and all social media work?
A well read man like yourself, must have some ideas.

I think the key would be to get rid of the Saudis.

Making sure to enforce the two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would also help, but really, I think the main problem is that the Saudis are using their oil money to spread the extreme wahabbism version of Islam.

The beauty of that is that if we do stop using fossil fuels, we're not just helping fight climate change, but also - the Saudis will be royally screwed.

Also, you must remember thst from a European perspective things have really gotten a lot better since the 1970's:


Back then most of the terrorists were Catholics.
I'm not really sure what made them cool off, but I guess both Ireland and Spain were a lot poorer back then, so maybe we just need to invest more in places like Syria and Iraq and make sure people there have opportunities to find well paid jobs?

(Not sure how to make the graph fit the page; any mod who cares enough to help?)