It does seem to set up a policy of prioritizing minority religion refugees from the 7 Muslim majority countries that will ensue after the 120 day refugee ban. In practice, that would mean priority status for Christians.
They should make NEXUS like American PreCheck, in that being a citizen is a prerequisite. Personally, I think NEXUS should be reserved either for those who have to travel frequently across (like almost daily), as in those who live on one side and work on another, or those who already hold dual citizenship. I see this policy trying to give precedence back to nationals (citizens), and I’d say rightly so. Even 99% of citizens don’t use NEXUS lanes (because they don’t travel that often).
If most citizens don’t mind staying in long lines and being scrutinized by border patrol agents, why should foreign nationals?
Yes, that’s right. It’s happened before. It happens every 4-8 years, in fact. If you’re going to be so general as to parse it as “He refuses to abide by the agreements of the US”, then yes, virtually every time the Presidency shifts control to a different party, you can find examples of this. Sometimes even when it’s just the Congress that shifts. That’s why progressive presidents are bad- they make a bunch of radical changes to shit that the next administration is bound to walk back.
Obamacare. The Iran Nuclear Deal. Refugee policy. Every time Obama did something without Congressional approval, it was broadcast very loudly and very clearly that as soon as the GOP had the Oval Office, it was all going away. And of course, if Trump does a bunch of super unpopular shit without Congressional approval, the same thing will happen if and when the DNC takes the big chair.
Yeah, that “minority religion” bit is a stickler. Does all of Islam count as one religion? What about a Kurd? They suffer religious persecution all the time. If a Sunni Kurd is being persecuted in a mostly Shia state, are they a religious minority eligible to be a refugee, or nah?
Saw on the late night news that the Muslim ban was temporarily suspended by the courts… I didn’t think that u?S. Courts had the authority to override Government decisions just like that?
The judge is acting out of order. The law that gives the president the authority is plain to read. The judge and critics of the “ban” are guilty of trying to use other not directly related law to say that the president doesn’t have the power he does. Read USCode SS 1182. They are ignoring it, or trying to say that other law overrides this authority. It’s just like what the looney tunes are saying here at ILP. That or they are flat out making shit up, like it has to apply to all citizens (looking at you Phyllo, I noticed you ignored that law completely when I posted it). Basically it’s just another example where the snowflakes are having their feelings hurt, which couldn’t possibly translate into anything but “this is Xist”.
That link was at least 30 pages of legal text on my screen. What was your point?
I’ll admit that I’m not a lawyer. I don’t pretend to comprehend all the nuances of the laws involved in this situation. That it complies or it does not comply with the letter of the law is not my main point. As I said, laws can be used to justify terrible wrongs.
Rather than Xist, I would call it heavy handed, thoughtless, insensitive and useless as a security measure. I see that kind of attitude leading directly to major abuses of power - abuses which will bite Americans directly rather than just some “other” people. When you start to treat some people like garbage, eventually everyone becomes disposable.
Australia is a major US ally and they had an agreement that the US would take 1250 refugees. Why treat the Australians like shit and try to back out of that deal? Makes no sense.
The US and Canada had an understanding that travel of Canadian permanent residents would not be affected by “the ban”. The Canadian minister in charge said as much … just before the Nexus cards were revoked. 
Makes no sense to do that to your largest trading partner.
So you admit you don’t know what you are talking about, and yet you keep talking. This is the thing. All you have are feelings. All any leftist has is feelings. Why have any laws at all, when at any time they can just be declared ‘heavy handed’ by people who dont know what the fuck they are talking about. Why have any values? Why have any America? Why don’t we just govern on feelings?
Look I don’t even live in the US, I am not a US citizen, and even I could take 5 minutes to skim through the law. The bits you will find most important are these:
and more pertinent to this discussion:
But I guess none of that matters if we are “heavy handed”.
Are you a lawyer? Is your specialty immigration law or constitutional law?
That’s funny. Me a lefty.
And the lefties accuse me of being a fascist.
You are governing on feelings. Suddenly revoking Nexus cards or valid visas is not rational. A new system for issuing visas with “extreme vetting” could have been developed and put in place and in the meantime the existing visas would be used. Too complicated for Trump and Co. ?
The Nexus system doesn’t work on the Canadian border? Says who? It already involves background checks and interviews. Trump has some magic vetting system in mind?
In what way is the travel of these people detrimental? Why must visas be immediately and without prior notice be revoked? What is the immediate threat?
There is none.
This rant is about your views on immigration in general?
Those Nexus card holders are not immigrating to the US. 
Some of the visa holders are immigrating but not all.
Not necessarily. My read of it is that the states are claiming damages - that not letting those people with valid visas in is going ot hurt their economies- and the judge has simply ruled that their case is strong enough that the executive order needs to be suspended until it’s investigated in court. I mean sure, it’s possible he’s just a lefty shill who thinks Trump is Hitler using his bench to strike out at him and the legal stuff is just a veneer, but that’s a huge accusation and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
You weren’t there for the conversation, you don’t know if Trump tried to back out of the deal or not, but feel free to believe whatever the Washington Post tells you on these matters. Like I just got done saying, you have to look at the previous administration. Why did Obama agree to take those refugees in the first place, and when? Did he agree to it 6 years ago in exchange for something Australia was going to do for us, or did he agree to it 2 months ago specifically to make life difficult for the Trump administration?
thestar.com/news/canada/201 … l-ban.html
[/quote]
The Canadian Government is urging liberal Americans to oppose Trump’s travel ban? OMG, why would you do that to your biggest trading partner? You know, that question you just got done asking?
You were there? That’s awesome.
You just like to suggest that you know the truth and everybody else has crappy biased sources and/or they’re “making shit up”.
Very clever. 
youtube.com/watch?v=wbIXmB2ZLmA
NEXUS Program
I remember the time when all you needed was driver’s license (or birth certificate) to cross the border. Then, all citizens were required to have their passports with them (that was even before 9/11). I see NEXUS as a money-based VIP pass that serves as a loophole. You pass the background check, and pay $180. And you don’t have to be a citizen. The NEXUS lane is almost always empty because most people don’t want to pay for it. In NEXUS lane, you don’t get interrogated by a border agent, and you car doesn’t get inspected. You scan your card and tell the agent you have nothing to declare.
The NEXUS experience - this guy just saved himself 1 - 1.5 hrs of standing in traffic and an interrogation (and possible inspection of his car):
youtube.com/watch?v=vgOEslMRgAk
I’m not the one claiming to know how the conversation went, or basing an argument on that claim. So yeah, do you have a crappy biased source, or are you making shit up?
There are two critical video clips displayed toward the end of this video; one of Pres Clinton and the other of Pres Obama. Both extreme liberals state almost exactly what Pres Trump has stated regarding immigration.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OvUvODCgxA[/youtube]
The only difference is that Trump, too naive to be a politician merely playing the role, is actually doing something about it.
K: maybe, just maybe Clinton and Obama actually understood this thing
called the constitution and knew they couldn’t just ban Muslims like
45 did… you know because it violates the letter AND spirit of the law
and constitution…
Kropotkin
Through what means does the Constitution apply to non-resident, non-citizens? Was Obama violating the Constitutional rights of people in Pakistan and so on when he blew them up with drones? It seems like murdering somebody would be at least as unconstitutional as not letting them immigrate, as long as we’re applying the U.S. Constitution to people who aren’t here.
K: maybe, just maybe Clinton and Obama actually understood this thing
called the constitution and knew they couldn’t just ban Muslims like
45 did… you know because it violates the letter AND spirit of the law
and constitution…
U: Through what means does the Constitution apply to non-resident, non-citizens? Was Obama violating the Constitutional rights of people in Pakistan and so on when he blew them up with drones? It seems like murdering somebody would be at least as unconstitutional as not letting them immigrate, as long as we’re applying the U.S. Constitution to people who aren’t here.
[/quote]
K: it is a very complicated question with many moving parts…
did Obama violate the constitutional rights of the people of Pakistan?
I don’t know if Pakistan even has a constitution. I can tell you, regardless
if he violated their rights either here in the US or in Pakistan, I can say, it
was wrong… and I have said so before… that is the problem with this idea
of killing people before they have done something to you like in the case of
al-quada or ISIS, is that you have assume facts not in evidence… you assume because
they belong to an organization, that they must be guilty of crimes done in that
organization name…are all members of the KKK guilty of crimes committed by
the KKK, no, and they shouldn’t be treated as such, with that said, if they
advocate violence, they need to be stopped… it is no different than yelling
fire in a theater… you don’t have absolute freedom…and then another argument
can be construed that is different and defends the rights of those who belong to
the KKK and ISIS… it is a slippery slope to understand HOW we are to stop
someone who may or may not damage us. Or do we stop everyone who belongs to this
organization because they encourage violence… it is a very complex and difficult idea to work out
and much more complex when the person/organization is not in the US…
Do we assume we can defend ourselves regardless of where the person resides?
that is a bold and rather troublesome question… there are a lot of moving parts
in this question and you can fix on one aspect of the moving part and it will lead
you to say, yes, we can violate rights to kill this person and you can fix on another
aspect and say, no we cannot violate the right of this person and kill them…
and then complicate it some more with a look if they are citizens of the US or not…
depends on how you look at it
brighter minds then mine have been struggling with this…depends on where you hang your hat…
Kropotkin
Wait, so it’s Pakistan’s Constitution that matters? So Trump, for example, could ban all the Muslims from a country if that country doesn’t have a Constitution? I thought you were saying he was violating the first amendment or something.
Anyway, it’s a very simple question, and you wrote a lot of words for not answering it: To what extent does the U.S. Constiution apply to non-citizen, non-residents? Does it even make sense to say that Trump (or Obama or whomever) doing something to some guy in the Sudan is ‘violating the U.S. Constitution’ as you stated?
I don’t think brighter minds have been struggling with this. I think it’s transparently obvious that the Constitution is a legal document that obviously doesn’t apply to people outside US jurisdiction…