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

Black people had it way worse in the 1850s than the 1950s.

 

This new healthcare bill seems rushed and a huge mistake.

Come on Senate.

 

How the heck do you as a collective group run on replacing Obamacare and when given the chance seemingly come into the situation so unprepared?!?

 

Since it was passed and until the last couple of months of 2016, for congressional republicans the agenda was repeal only. They should have done that on day one and be fleshing out piecemeal at this moment what they want to happen. I am sure there is consensus stuff that could have been in bill 2 ( bill 1 being repeal), more contentious stuff in bill 3 and an all out fight right now over bill 4.

When you hear comprehensive anything what you have is bribery, extortion and the screwing of the American people.

LOL whats funny is I didn't vote for Trump but am willing to cut him more slack than most on here. In fact I have mostly been please. Then again I dont watch MSM or pay attention to latest game of gotcha or some over-hyped gaffe. I see Gorscuh on the court, the EPA coming to heel, and a refreshing move to the right so far. Its just 100 days. I will worry if and when we lose the House and Senate and the opportunity to build the wall, cut taxes, cut off the muslim spigot, cut off Planned Parenthood. I like the muscle flexing on NK. Oh and an EO for religious liberty.

I hope that scuttles LBJs unconstitutional ban on political speech in church.

 

Cut off the Muslim spigot?

 

The way he could improve media is by himself being objective and supporting his claims with evidence and sources. Instead, he is Donald Trump. Sad!

 

Yes sir. The orthodox brand of the religion is incompatible with our constitution. Yes I know there are moderates and even liberal Muslims but we dont have the ability to truly determine whats in the mind of the people coming over here from parts of the ME where society has broken down due to the multitudes of wars.

Do you want to have the problems that the UK and France have with un-assimilated young Muslim men?

We had Christians proselytizing in Mich. and attacked by a Muslim crowd. The police arrested the Christians but fortunately a court stepped in and smacked them down.

You dont see me advocating such actions against Sekes, Hindus, Zoroastrians, animists, Taoists, buddhists etc. Why? they dont tend to kill and rape people in the name of their religion.

Yep I have never read a story about a guy named Sanjay blowing himself up while yelling Ganesh Akbar.

 

Indian freedom fighters in Sri Lanka were the innovators of the suicide vest. In any event, the point remains that you are just too lazy, at best, to differentiate between the minority of Muslims who participate in these acts and the majority that don't, aside from the fact that we are actually pretty good at screening those who come into the country these days. Sorry, your characterization and justification are just weak and prejudiced. You base them on anecdotes and scary news stories, probably from your right wing news sources that continually hype the fear, while terrorist acts by Muslim refugees and immigrants is exceptionally small. You have a greater chance of getting killed by a right wing Christian nationalist type than a Muslim immigrant.

 

It is very ironic that he picked the religious culture that invented the suicide vest as the example of religions not ever doing it.

 

LTTE was a secular and socialist organization. While most were nominal Hindus their fights were not religion based. It was a nationalist movement. Their fight was not global.

Muslim religious wars span the globe.

Again its the diners of baba ganoush who face east 5 times a day and not the followers of Ganesh wildly yelling Allahu Akbar when in the throws of their blood lust.

 

A lot of the ones that wind up killing come over before they get radicalized. We let in thousands of 18 year old Saudis each year on the King's scholarship.I'm not overly comfortable with that. My wife has taught these guys remedial English in college and she said there were 2 or 3 (out of about 30) that she didn't trust a bit based on comments they made. She showed a video about a fictional campus shooting scenario and they were laughing. They asked to not have class on Friday and were angry when she wouldn't accommodate. Of course I doubt those boys ever do anything, but letting thousands of young single males come over from the home of wahhabism is a horrible policy. I'd rather have 10 times that many illegal Mexicans.

In the last 20 years right wing Christian nationalists have killed more in terrorist attacks than muslims? I'd be very surprised if that's true.

 

They're still Hindu, and were organized as such, and they still could be called Sanjay. You paint with an awfully wide brush, not to mention the fact that "cutting off the Muslim spigot" is a discriminatory policy that's illegal. Again, just brushing aside a group because you're too lazy or indifferent to go beyond your base impressions of the people shouldn't be policy.

 

NO IT IS NOT...you have one judge or two making that claim and its against the explicit language of the constitution and precedents of SCOTUS.

Chinese persons were excluded in 1882 and it was upheld in Chae Chan Ping v. United States. Note this is after the 13th and 14th amendments and not long after they were passed. 14 years after giving blacks full rights, race was used to exclude persons from entry.

So race can be used

Anarchist were excluded in 1903 and Japanese in 1924 immigration acts

Communists were banned in 1952. So you have race, nationality and political beliefs being excluded.

So anyone alien can be excluded for any reason. Thats precedent and constitutional.

From the University of Minnesota:

"To date there have been no successful challenges to federal legislation that refuses admission to classes of non-citizens or removes resident aliens. Federal immigration power thus appears limitless. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete." Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977), Kleindienst v. Mandel, (Sup.Ct.1972), and Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan (Sup.Ct.1909). Extreme judicial deference bears witness to the truth of this statement.


Both the Constitution and the U.N. Charter have been dismissed as grounds for opposing federal immigration power. The federal courts and immigration authorities have without much consideration rejected an assertion in Hitai v. INS (2d Cir.1965), Vlissidis v. Anadell (7th Cir.1959), and Matter of Laurenzano (BIA 1970) that the immigration quota system is inconsistent with the U.N. Charter. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of federal statutes that detain non-citizens for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings (Demore v. Kim (Sup.Ct.2003)) and that exclude non-citizens on the basis of race (Chinese Exclusion Case (1889)) and political belief (Kleindienst v. Mandel (Sup.Ct.1972)). Moreover, excluded non-citizens have no constitutional right to a hearing. Shaughnessy v. Mezei (Sup.Ct.1953). Mezei also determined that excludable non-citizens can be indefinitely detained if their country of origin refuses to accept them. For a discussion on the constitutionality of indefinite detention of resident aliens and excludable (now “inadmissible”) non-citizens, see § 9-5, infra.

Even where the First Amendment and Equal Protection rights of U.S. citizens were jeopardized, in Mandel, the Supreme Court refused to look behind the Executive's negative exercise of discretion on the basis of a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" in refusing entry to a Belgian Communist. First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens were arguably jeopardized again in 2001, when the Attorney General closed “special interest” deportation hearings to the public and press. In Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft (6th Cir.2002), the court held that non-substantive immigration laws do not require special deference to the government and that closure violated the First Amendment right of access. The Third Circuit disagreed and in North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft (3d Cir.2002), the court deferred to the Attorney General’s judgment and held that no First Amendment right of access to deportation hearings existed — allowing the hearings to remain closed. In 2003, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to North Jersey Media Group, Inc. One district court found non-citizens have First Amendment rights not to be deported (now "removed") for political activity. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed for lack of standing and ripeness in AmericanBArab AntiBDiscrimination Committee v. Thornburgh (9th Cir.1991), but later affirmed an injunction against deportation of the non-citizens. AmericanBArab AntiBDiscrimination Committee v. Reno (9th Cir.1997). In 1999, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, holding that INA § 242(g) deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over claims of selective enforcement of immigration laws by the Attorney General. See § 13B4.5, infra.

Federal courts have sustained the detention of non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies without the opportunity for a pre-detention hearing under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Courts have also rejected other Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection claims. The Fifth Circuit, in response to an Equal Protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, held that “[d]ue process does not require Congress to grant aliens from all nations the same chances for admission to or remaining within the United States.” Rodriguez-Silva v. INS (5th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court also rejected a Fifth Amendment claim by refusing to reach the issue of whether the Equal Protection principles inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protected a class of undocumented Haitians detained without parole. Instead, the Court ruled that the non-citizens§ claims were to be judged under nondiscriminatory federal statutes and regulations. Jean v. Nelson (Sup.Ct.1985). In FernandezBRoque v. Smith (11th Cir.1984), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Cuban nationals found excludable had no constitutionally?based liberty interest in challenging denial or revocation of parole. In GarciaBMir v. Meese (11th Cir.1986), the same court further held that unadmitted Mariel Cuban parolees did not have any other Due Process liberty interest entitling them to parole revocation hearings, nor were they entitled to such hearings on the basis of international law. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.12 for parole determinations and revocations respecting Mariel Cubans. Similarly, deportation (now "removal") orders are consistently upheld despite a myriad of conceivable constitutional challenges. Courts inclined to limit Due Process restrictions have cited Mathews v. Diaz (Sup.Ct.1976) (“In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”)


In McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center (Sup.Ct.1991), the Supreme Court held that challenges to the constitutionality of the practices, procedures, and policies of the INS were proper subjects for judicial review. In that case Congress had required non-citizens to seek judicial review of individual denials of special agricultural worker (SAW) status only in the context of exclusion or deportation. Since the Haitian Refugee Center was not challenging an individual determination but the entire process, because of the presumption in favor of review of administrative actions, and because constitutional issues were at stake, the court found jurisdiction. In 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals held in Haitian Refugee Center v. Baker (11th Cir.1991) that non-citizens, who were detained on the high seas and, therefore, had never presented themselves at a U.S. border, had no right to judicial review of INS decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. Moreover, the court held that these non-citizens had no individual right of action, unless they qualified for refugee status. Further, the court held that the refugee center and their attorneys had no First Amendment claim for gaining access to those detained non-citizens. The Supreme Court denied certiorari over the objections of Justice Blackmun, who complained that this challenge to the U.S. procedures for determining whether a group faces political persecution should not go unheard by the Court. In Sale v. Haitian Center Council, Inc. (Sup.Ct.1993), the Court upheld summary return of Haitians intercepted on the high seas without considering their asylum claims. The interdiction agreement ceased to exist in 1994, when Haitian President Aristide withdrew his government's consent. See § 9-1.1(a)(2), infra.

Courts continue to review the practices, procedures, and policies of immigration authorities even though Congress has attempted to restrict judicial review. For example, INA § 242(g) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to hear a claim “arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders ....” The Supreme Court followed this directive in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (Sup.Ct.1999), but in 2001, the Court warned that a “strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action” exists and the INS must overcome “the longstanding rule requiring a clear and unambiguous statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction.” INS v. St. Cyr (Sup.Ct.2001). See § § 2-3.2, 9-4.3 infra.

Federal legislative decisions removing or refusing admission to non-citizens are subject to a very limited scope of judicial scrutiny. Cases sustaining the broad authority of Congress over immigration have relied upon Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977). Thus far, the courts have largely resisted prodding by scholars and litigants to encourage the courts to scrutinize federal power over this subject matter."

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

 

I understand its Breitbart, but I found this as an interesting read. Basically wondering if the "failed" North Korea missile launches are actually planned detonations for an EMP strike. I'm too lazy to see if anyone else has this take.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...rea-prepping-emp-warfare-aimed-u-s-homefront/

 

DC -

All that BS and not one mention of the Immigration Act of 1965. I wonder why? I mean, seriously, you are citing the Chinese Exclusion Act? Really? Quotas? You realize all that shit has been overturned, right?

 

Never seen someone positively reflect on the Chinese exclusion act before. FFS.

 

Overturned? By whom?

Congress can give or take away criterion is the point. POTUS acts within that framework. The OLC gave Trump the green light.

Its not the courts job to interfere in immigration. SCOTUS has affirmed that many times. The only case that might be made if there is conflicting statutes from congress. Thats not what the two judges used as their reason.

Thats one of Yates arguments but she was fired because no one can cite a time when the AG went against OLC. She also spouted nonsense about constitutionality. But SCOTUS has settled that many times and affirmed aliens dont have the same rights a citizens, no right to entry, can be excluded for any reason, and congress' power is plenary.

So SCOTUS might look at this case and decide on the conflicting statues. Maybe they give POTUS the power to interpret how to deal with the conflicts? Maybe they claim they have no judicial review and its between congress and the POTUS. Maybe they rule one supersedes the other and then congress can go back and remove the conflicting language. But it is highly unlikely that they find a "constitutional" violation.

I find it very doubtful that this SCOTUS will use a liberal lens and find that aliens have constitutional rights and can't be discriminated against because of race, religion or origin.

 

Its to show that congress' power is plenary when it comes to immigration. There is no criterion congress can't use. The only possible angle is one of statutory conflict. The district level twerps made their ruling against settled constitutional law and didn't use the latter as their reasoning.

 

Detonations are to low to be a truly effective EMP. They need it to blow up about 200-300 miles above Nebraska or they will not have "put our eyes out." Retaliation in such a scenario would be full and complete annihilation in a counter strike as any semi-successful EMP attack would be seen as strategically significant and require the ultimate response.

There would be no invasion

Another angle is that we are sending the self destruct signal to the missiles and the Norks cant figure out what's happening to their missiles. They could be fully functional and with out flaw (except the vulnerability to the hacking if that's the case.)

But is more likely that the third rate hermit kingdom is building low quality stuff and the Red Dawn remake was a joke considering the Norks dont have a real navy let alone a blue water one capable of invading another continent.

Now I do beleive fat boy has orbited a small satellite. Now that procedure could be used to create an EMP weapon. So as big a joke as he is he can and only has to get lucky once with an EMP.

The rabid dog is bad for business. An unstable ruler with nukes isn't in Chinas interests so I think thats their angle not that they are doing the US or Trump a favor.

Another problem with fatboy is that he is exporting his tech to Iran. Iran has money and can more rapidly take that tech and improve it! I believe there are signs that they too are looking into an EMP strike using a tanker to sneak a missile in on us.

Sam T. Cohen had it right but unfortunately our politicians are, well, politicians and not strategic thinkers. We could use a Curtis LeMay.