Temp Halt gets overturned?

[piezoe]

i'm not staying a higher elected official's move to protect national security.

This is where I find something of interest in this argument. The executive branch is claiming that the President issued the order to protect national security; yet there is a wide body of expert opinion expressing the view that the President's order actually made the nation less secure. The opposing viewpoint is supported by reasoned conjecture. The President has stated that other nations are sending terrorists to our soil. For the most part, this is not supported by known facts. For example, almost all the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have been perpetrated by home grown terrorists. The 911 attack being a notable exception. However that attack, would not have been prevented by the President's order had it been in place in 2001, as the order does not affect the countries from which the 911 Terrorists came. Nor today would it have any effect on terrorists entering the U.S. legally from a hundred other countries where potential terrorists may legally reside.

It is conceivable that even the President realizes the defects in his order; defects making the order ineffective for its publicly stated purpose. Is it possible the order was intended as a partisan pandering to the Presidents political base, a base that believes the U.S. is in substantial danger from Muslim terrorists entering the U.S. from one of the included countries? Could the order have been a simple blunder by a novice president. If it were, we know our new President well enough to be certain he would be psychologically incapable of admitting such. Regardless, of the true reasons for the order, we know one one thing: the President and those who say his order made us less safe cannot both be right.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The executive branch is claiming that the President issued the order to protect national security; yet there is a wide body of expert opinion expressing the view that the President's order actually made the nation less secure.

The argument it makes us less safe is absurd on its face, but in any event we elected a President to make these kinds of decisions. Not a district court judge in Washington state. The President only has to show he has statutory authority to issue the order, which is abundantly clear. This is not even a case where he has to demonstrate a rational basis for his action, as is the case with most agency rules and orders.

 

[Cuddles]

The argument it makes us less safe is absurd on its face, but in any event we elected a President to make these kinds of decisions. Not a district court judge in Washington state. The President only has to show he has statutory authority to issue the order, which is abundantly clear. This is not even a case where he has to demonstrate a rational basis for his action, as is the case with most agency rules and orders.

I think it makes sense. Of course not excusing terrorist scumbags, but you had an administration that was trying to reach out to muslims, a population that by and large is less willing to look at the US in a positive light; then comes in another that's completely against them, if you're a terrorist looking for support, now is the perfect time to pour fuel on the fire. If you strike now it's a win win, one because it would undermine the left's attempts at being civilized about the issue, and two because it would galvanize the right and the moderates for Trump and against the muslim world (something that terrorists are undoubtedly looking to do).

 

[achilles28]

The argument it makes us less safe is absurd on its face, but in any event we elected a President to make these kinds of decisions. Not a district court judge in Washington state. The President only has to show he has statutory authority to issue the order, which is abundantly clear. This is not even a case where he has to demonstrate a rational basis for his action, as is the case with most agency rules and orders.

This. Hysterical liberals can go f themselves

 

[jem]

san bernardino killer Tahfeen Malik was not home grown and she could have been stopped with proper betting.

plus its its also lefty illogical to make any risk assessment based on it not happening yet.
that is not the way security and intelligence needs to work.
you figure out where ISIS and al queda and other terrorists might try to mix in and you stop it.

This is where I find something of interest in this argument. The executive branch is claiming that the President issued the order to protect national security; yet there is a wide body of expert opinion expressing the view that the President's order actually made the nation less secure. The opposing viewpoint is supported by reasoned conjecture. The President has stated that other nations are sending terrorists to our soil. For the most part, this is not supported by known facts. For example, almost all the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have been perpetrated by home grown terrorists. The 911 attack being a notable exception. However that attack, would not have been prevented by the President's order had it been in place in 2001, as the order does not affect the countries from which the 911 Terrorists came. Nor today would it have any effect on terrorists entering the U.S. legally from a hundred other countries where potential terrorists may legally reside.

It is conceivable that even the President realizes the defects in his order; defects making the order ineffective for its publicly stated purpose. Is it possible the order was intended as a partisan pandering to the Presidents political base, a base that believes the U.S. is in substantial danger from Muslim terrorists entering the U.S. from one of the included countries? Could the order have been a simple blunder by a novice president. If it were, we know our new President well enough to be certain he would be psychologically incapable of admitting such. Regardless, of the true reasons for the order, we know one one thing: the President and those who say his order made us less safe cannot both be right.

 

[jem]

there have been plenty of arrests from the subject countries.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/immigration-seattle-judge-wrong-claim/

The Seattle judge who temporarily banned the White House’s refugee reform plan acted after mistakenly claiming the federal government has not arrested jihadi migrants from the seven Muslim countries covered by the reform.
But the federal government has arrested and jailed at least 76 people since 2001 from the seven countries covered in the first stage of the president’s reform, which was announced late January.

That fact means there is a huge error in the judge’s rationale for imposing a “Temporary Restraining Order” ban on the president’s popular reform of the expensive refugee and immigration programs.

In a hearing before the decision, Judge James Robart told a lawyer from the Department of Justice that the federal government has not arrested people since 2001 from any of the seven countries named in the reform, since the 20o1 atrocity in New York. “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” he asked.

The justice department’s lawyer replied, “Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” prompting Robart to answer his own question:

Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there’s no support for that.

But according to a database built by the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, the federal government has arrested and convicted at least 73 people from the seven countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen.

The Senate’s database was assembled despite repeated refusals by Obama’s deputies to provide immigration-related data to the Senate subcommittee in 2016.


However, by reviewing public data, “at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad,” the report concluded in June 2016. The committee’s report also added:

At least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas. Additionally, of those born abroad, at least 62 were from Pakistan, 28 were from Lebanon, 22 were Palestinian, 21 were from Somalia, 20 were from Yemen, 19 were from Iraq, 16 were from Jordan, 17 were from Egypt, and 10 were from Afghanistan.

A check by Breitbart News shows that the people convicted include five Iranians, 19 Iraqis, two Libyans, 21 Somalians, six Syrians, three Sudanese and 20 Yemenis. That’s a total of 76 people, at least.

The committee’s review of arrestees was overseen by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, then-chairman of the Senate immigration panel.

Sessions is expected to become the nation’s Attorney General, and will likely reverse the justice department’s 2016 policy of hiding information about terrorists’ immigration status from the public.

A review of the Senate’s data in 2016 by Breitbart News showed that at least 100 men named for Mohammed have been arrested and convicted for jihad-related crimes since 2001.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I think it makes sense. Of course not excusing terrorist scumbags, but you had an administration that was trying to reach out to muslims, a population that by and large is less willing to look at the US in a positive light; then comes in another that's completely against them, if you're a terrorist looking for support, now is the perfect time to pour fuel on the fire. If you strike now it's a win win, one because it would undermine the left's attempts at being civilized about the issue, and two because it would galvanize the right and the moderates for Trump and against the muslim world (something that terrorists are undoubtedly looking to do).

So basically if we are not nice to them they may kill us? That is your argument?

Well by all means, let as many as want come here or check with the seattle judge and get him to decide how many.

 

[fhl]

We're back to 'if we don't let them in, they'll kill us'. Is that supposed to be a real argument?


As far as the order needing to be struck down because thousands already had valid visas and it makes life difficult for them, that's ridiculous, too.


What would the left have said if the right had said, 'look, thousands of Christians have already gone through the legalities of setting up a business and now Obama comes along and passes a law that says Christian businesses have to be involved in homo marriage. It really inconveniences those Christians.' Can't you just hear the response from all the lefty's if we had made that argument?

 

[fhl]

Extreme vetting is too cruel.
Extreme bombing is ok, though.


Here's Obama's extreme bombing of Yemen.

Here's obama's extreme bombing of Libya.

And here's some of obama's extreme bombing in syria.

No word from the judge on why extreme bombing isn't rantworthy.

 

[Cuddles]

So basically if we are not nice to them they may kill us? That is your argument?

Well by all means, let as many as want come here or check with the seattle judge and get him to decide how many.

nah, that's diluting the argument...it's more of a 'you see, they won't show muslims kindness, even refugees from war torn countries that they destroyed themselves, they want to keep you out and exterminate your kind [fundamentalist argument]'. Sure you may think it's weak, but people get antsy when you lump them into "all the same" categories.