Trump II

[Ray]

Not if they are fleeing (or have to fear) other Muslims, no, not obvious at all. There are several 'flavors' of Islam and they are rather intolerant amongst eachother. Would it be best to provide a safe place to stay (for a while) in the region they come from, sure. But if there are too many, one might be better off to spread the burdon a bit to avoid that direct neighbors collapse as well. One has to be pragmatic.

Bart,
There are many flavours of all sorts of things. If religion is important for you, then the best solution is to live in a country which supports your particular flavour of religion. That's pragmatic.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wouldn't Kuwait also have a "legal obligation" to give shelter to asylum seekers and refugees, and provide them with "food, shelter, basic medical care, etc."?

Yes, but they don't give a damn about their 'brothers', and apparently have the sympathy of the USA.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,
There are many flavours of all sorts of things. If religion is important for you, then the best solution is to live in a country which supports your particular flavour of religion. That's pragmatic.

Not really, it's narrow minded, flat earth thinking behavior.
Open minded people can learn something from one another, even if it is what not to do.
Dogmatic beliefs, and the same goes for Trump, seem incapable of even learning from their own mistakes.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

"Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now"

Thank God for the Electoral College, otherwise, we would have the lying and corrupt Clinton family enabled to continue their self-enrichment program at the expense of Americans while further degrading America in the eyes of the world and our citizens.

Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.

Cheers,
Bud

+1

[Chairman Bill]

Whereas you've got the lying & corrupt Trump family, continuing their self-enrichment programme at the expense of Americans, whilst further degrading the USA in the eys of the world & its citizens.

BTW, there is no alt-left press.

Neither candidate was fit for purpose, but the lesser of two the evils was probably Clinton.

[Manoli]

On the contrary, any US president has a legal power to stop any group of people, for any reason, from entering the US.

Well, apparently not.
Or did I, and the rest of the world, misunderstand the recent Appeals Court decision ?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Correct. At some point you'd expect people to accept that that's the way he speaks, that's his personality, broad-brush, big picture, intuitive. Or they can keep taking him literally and deliberately misinterpreting the context.

You mean I am NOT going to get great health insurance for a very low price???  I was so looking forward to this as I thought this was big picture and intuitive.  I'm puzzled at what points I am supposed to take literally or not.  It's all so puzzling and now I'm NOT going to get my wonderful health insurance; woe is me!!!

[Alan Goldhammer]

Would you prefer rust-belt workers or the rednecks appointed instead?

Nope, the Goldman people are fine with me as I will do quite well with their approach to tax reform.  I feel sorry for the rust-belt workers who are going to be sold down the river with their $10/month increase in income after tax reform.  It's wonderful being on the right side of hypocrisy.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, apparently not.
Or did I, and the rest of the world, misunderstand the recent Appeals Court decision ?

No, you got it right.  Slobadan has a strange interpretaion of the Constitution as not applying to the President.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Slobodan has a strange interpretation of the Constitution as not applying to the President.

It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:

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.

Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:

Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)

There may be better sources, but this is quite clear:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

Nothing supersedes the Constitution, not even Trump the President.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Nothing supersedes the Constitution, not even Trump the President.

Your link references "treaties," this is a law. You'd think that, if unconstitutional, it would have been overturned in the the last 65 years?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, apparently not.
Or did I, and the rest of the world, misunderstand the recent Appeals Court decision ?

It is not unheard of that lower courts got it wrong.

[Manoli]

It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:
Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)

/*sigh
yes, and the key wording (which of course you didn't embolden) is the part 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. Something that, despite repeated requests by both courts, the administration were unable (or unwilling) to supply any substantiating submissions.

And before you and other Trumpettes, blah-on about terrorism , I'd remind you that since the US refugee programme began in 1975, more than 3.2m refugees have entered the US and only three have carried out a deadly terrorist attack. Those three were Cubans who committed their crimes in the 1970s. A 2016 Cato Institute report found that the chance of an American being murdered in a refugee-perpetrated terrorist attack was 1 in 3.64bn in any given year.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

/*sigh
yes, and the key wording (which of course you didn't embolden) is the part 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. Something that, despite repeated requests by both courts, the administration were unable (or unwilling) to supply any substantiating submissions....

Let me bolden the really relevant part of that sentence:

"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..."

[Schewe]

No, I am actually telling you the opposite: to try to understand. The first step is not to take things literelly.

So...I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Don't take anything Trump says "literally"...

So, assuming we can agree on the definition of "literally" (on dictionary.com–can we?) as:

literally
[lit-er-uh-lee]
adverb
1. in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
What does the word mean literally?

2. in a literal manner; word for word:
to translate literally.

3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
The city was literally destroyed.

4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.

So, what you are saying is that Trump should not be taken literally in a strict sense, or word for word or without exaggeration or inaccuracy or in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

Sorry, I guess I'm at a complete loss as to how I can listen to the words somebody says and not take the words that are said literally. You either say what you mean or you mean what you say but you can't say something and not mean it. Not if you are trying to communicate key ideas or concepts. Something I think is important if they are interested in leading people.

I think it's a very sad day when one can't take the words of our president as meaningful communication and to be told to not take him literally is an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people...reminds me of the line from the Wizard of Oz–pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!



Yeah, that doesn't work for me...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Let me bolden the really relevant part of that sentence:

"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..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:

Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)

Well aware of the statute that was passed during the awful McCarthy Red Baiting years (substitute Muslim for Red and you pretty much get what is happening today).  the problem is that the President still has to follow the law and the first attempt was so woeful that had it been a first year associate at a law firm, that person would have been dismissed.  We'll see if they can get it right the second time.

[jeremyrh]

It is not unheard of that lower courts got it wrong.

Luckily we have a Guy On The Internet to set us straight when the judges get it wrong.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Luckily we have a Guy On The Internet to set us straight when the judges get it wrong.

No, luckily we have higher courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.