POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

It's written in the Immigration Law of 1965 that you can't discriminate. It's written explicitly. All the laborious lengths you go to try and justify discriminating against people will only get you into the same position Ted Cruz was yesterday when he was schooled on the law by Yates. I suggest you brush up on the law because, of all the laws you cited, it's the most recent and most valid, often discarding or eliminating previous laws, like the one establishing quotas for certain area or regions of the world.

So, yes, aliens do actually have certain constitutional rights and is noted in the Constitution in a few areas, such as the fifth amendment or the fourteenth. Your idea that it's perfectly legal and justified to partake in discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. is factually incorrect.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#386f08f4f1de

 

Again, Trump's EO doesn't discriminate, it stops immigration from certain countries.

 

The immigration Act of 1965 specifically states "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence"

 

I don't think it means what you want it to mean. Nor does it hold the legal weight you and Lying Sally want it to. However, you can dupe most of the braindead masses into thinking you are right.

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me and the courts, apparently. Of course, you've never been one to accept the clear and obvious if it doesn't fit your agenda. Everyone else is simply stupid, to you.

 

Well, maybe not.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/james-comey-huma-abedin-anthony-weiner-emails/index.html

 

You obviously didn't read the citation from U of Minn. that I posted they cited a case from 1976. The citation also discussed how aliens dont have 1st, 5th or 14th amendment rights. That is per SCOTUS.

And you do realize part of the 1965 CRA have been voided by SCOTUS within the last admin.

So its a statute not a constitutional amendment and cant trump said constitution.

Again your rogue judges dont cite the 1965 CRA but just say its unconstitutional. Funny you have a better argument than them but its statutory in nature. Either they got their degrees out of a cracker jack box or they are playing politics.

Ted did the schooling not Sally.

She pointed out the only valid argument and it was one of statutory conflict. SCOTUS as I said has shot down the rights arguments multiple times. Aliens have no right to come here, period. They can and have been discriminated against fro all manner of criterion including national origin and political belief.

She asked why she was left in the dark on some matter and Cruz answered it was because she was seen as partisan.

The final schooling was concerning her overstepping her bounds. Sen Kennedy R-La said "Who appointed you to the Supreme Court?" Her job was to defend the admins postilion once OLC deemed it legal. Trump said "Your Fired." Good for him.

 

Let's be honest, Uni will believe anything Lying Sally says, regardless of its merit.

 

Yeah, good for him. How has that travel ban worked out for him? She sure has been proven wrong there. Twice.

And, no, again, you absolutely cannot discriminate against someone's visa application by their nation of origin, ethnicity, etc. the quota system from the 1920s has been abolished for quite sometime. So, no, a visa applicant certainly does not have the same rights as a citizen, but they do have some protections.

 

And? Immigrants only have those rights once they gain legal entry into the country. The key term is residing. Even then they can be deported. As the Fordham prof says they have rights "in all contexts except immigration law." But this isn't the argument either. This is denying entry.

Lastly, I include a link to the 9th circus rehearing ruling. The dissenters wanted a rehearing even though the case was moot in order to correct errors made by the court and to vacate its ruling in order to clear up those errors. Judge Reinhardt's brief statement in this order is devoid of any facts and consists of less than one full page.

But the rebuttal lays the ground work for what may come before SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy would have been my concern but he is mentioned often in the rebuttal and his opinions would seem to favor Trumps positions.

If you do not read this in its entirety and can not counter the facts shown in the dissent of this order, then dont bother replying as I will ignore any such reply.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105%20en%20banc.pdf

 

Fine, ignore me.

 

James Comey, he gone.

 

So, Comey is gone because of the Hillary email stuff? Why did it take 4 months, if that is the case, and right after his testimony in the Russia hearings?

 

Wow, huge news. Should have been done day one of Trump. Ohh well better late than never. Trey Gowdy for the position? If only.

 

So now everybody who has investigated Trump has now been fired by Trump? Move along, nothing to see here.

 

Ohh yeah, forgot to add....lock her up baby. Make good on your word in the second debate Trump.

 

The dirt is coming fast now. Evidently Comey was withholding documents showing McMasters sharing classified info with Patreus. Andrew McCabe is currently being investigate by DoJ regarding the Clinton emailgate. Will they re-open the Clinton investigation as well start one regarding Lying Susan Rice, Obama, Yates, etc. and the spying scandal?

 

The cesspool running our county is just downright disturbing on both sides.

 

In honor of the Comey firing and Sick Hillary probably having a sleepless night wondering who Donald may appoint...

[video=youtube;OKdrEMSi_Xk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKdrEMSi_Xk[/video]