I wonder how much of the confusion is:
PS: I want to know why autocorrect changed “fucking” to “living”…
I think the confusion is the White House legitimately not realizing that the EO wouldn’t apply to green card holders and ordering DHS to detain them anyways. And then racist CBP agents deciding that “activist judges” with court orders can’t tell them what to do.
CNN has a surprisingly good story on this confusion. DHS head John Kelly has ordered the court ruling to be enforced and Green Card holders should be exempt, but Bannon seems to be trying to overrule the order and Kelly’s authority.
Aside from the mix-up over green card holders what is the biggest deal over the executive order? Obama had a six month ban on Iraqis coming to the US during his administration and Carter banned Iranians during his. There is no “Muslim ban” in the order either.
Most of the reporting is reading like an overblown tantrum based on a misreading of the order or simply crying wolf. I am not on team Trump but the EO reads clear to me in only impacting visas from a small set of countries and also includes plenty of exceptions and waiver options.
Regardless, something like this needed to be incredibly clear if it was to be acceptable by the general public. Your ruling regime should make it’s new laws absolutely crystal clear.
However if it was written and propagated clearly then that would deny the alt right from -
“Yer! Keep dem Muslims out DJ, we gon’ be great again, like when the dinosaurs were around!”
Do you really not know what it’s about?
Multiple judges, reading the text of the order, “cried wolf” within 24 hours. So it’s probably a big deal.
The vibe I get from your posts is frequently Well actually, it was about states’ rights, it’s not a ban on one religion, why can’t they use the bathroom I want them to?
Who gives a shit? Quit being an apologist for bigots.
Bleeding heart liberal think tank Cato Institute has a better explanation of the problem than I can write:
More specifically, you seem to be confused as to why this is illegal, especially in light of the Iran hostage crisis and Obama’s immigration policy. This explains quite clearly why those historical examples are different than the current ban.
INA 1182(f) is pretty clear;
*(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.*
8 U.S. Code § 1187 - Visa waiver program for certain visitors | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute is also worth reading as it specifically blocks people from certain countries.
I have read *legal analysis" that says what he did was legal and others that have said it was not. Both cite the same law!!!
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/ It’s pretty different…
My question is one of legality not morality. Is the Executive Order LEGAL? Does the President have the LEGAL authority to do what is in the Executive Order.
That’s for the courts to decide.
I asked some questions of my Aunt-in-law who was director of the Situation room, here is some of her responses to my questions, that should scare you.
Is this crazy? Can you explain what this means like isn’t this a big deal that his National security meetings are now don’t include the director of intelligence and the chairman of the JC’s but do include Steve Bannon?
to me
Yes. This is a VERY BIG deal, contrary to the assertion made by Priebus on Meet the Press this morning. The CJCS IS the President’s senior military advisor. Not having the ODNI there is also a BIG problem. Without the ODNI, there will be no intel to the President that has been adequately analyzed by the experts at Langley. To me, this is all very bad.
me, Why would someone do this?
to me
It is all about power. Controlling what information gets to the President and when he gets it. Someone doesn’t want CJCS and ODNI to have access to the President.
Trust me on this. Access is everything. Access is power.
Putting Bannon in and taking out the CJCS and ODNI preclude them from giving their version of intel to the President when he is sitting in his chair in the Sitroom. Just being in the Situation Room has power in itself, providing Bannon unfettered access to go into the Sitroom whenever he wants. There is an amazing amount of info to be found/learned in that space.
The mantra we have always used in my world – information is power. The person in the room to advise the President (the boss) is the person who holds the power.
Even though SecDef Mattis and DHS Kelly may be in the Sitroom with The President for NSC meetings, they do not have the information that CJCS and ODNI would have. This move is, as I said, VERY BAD.
jesus christ where do you even start this week.
If you don’t agree with Trump… even if you’re the Attorney General.
It is my understanding that he left Yates as acting attorney general (she is an Obama appointee) because of a need for her to sign off on some national security issues (without her there some things can not happen). When she came out against the president’s executive order stating the Justice Department would not defend it in court well… Political appointee played politics and lost.
It does reveal an interesting weakness and potential way to neuter the Trump administration but it is a very dangerous game to play. If Trump removes all of the Obama political appointees from executive branch agencies and his nominee’s are not confirmed, what happens?
Trump’s Immigration EO doesn’t appear to be explicitly unconstitutional. The first Amendment is about Congress, and there is a provision in the US Code giving the President the power to temporarily deny entry to classes of aliens. So now you have to look at legislative intent and the scope of Presidential powers. There is a 3-part case law test to determine if it is or not, which will have to be applied by a judge or judges. So yes, it is literally for the courts to decide.
When you are the head of an executive agency, you serve at the pleasure of the President. Sometimes that job sucks, so you refuse to do it, and the President removes you. Trump’s gonna keep doing this. If his appointees aren’t confirmed, a lot of people will be suddenly moved to “Acting” Director positions. The only way this will be a serious issue (for him) is if he cranks through enough staff that his hiring freeze creates a lack of people available to step up.
If you read her argument as to why she wouldn’t defend the EO in court, it was due to public statements that Trump and others made that this would include a religious test and was a Muslim ban in everything but name. So those statements made by the people who drafted the rule would be used in court against the EO. So she thought there would be difficulty defending them. (from the reporting I’ve read).
I saw that too. Wouldn’t that count as hearsay?
