Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Political Violence  (Read 2878 times)

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #80 on: July 09, 2017, 05:56:30 PM »

From page 11 of the SCOTUS decision.  The decision was 9-0.  While three judges wrote a concurring opinion, their opinion was even more restrictive not allowing any foreigners into the country including those with close ties.  Think about this.  Not one of the liberal justices wrote a dissenting opinion. Even Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer agreed.   It was 9-0.  Yet you want us to believe that when the full review process is completed in a few months, that the court is going to reverse what they already acknowledged in their stay of most of the lower court's  injunction. 


From the SCOTUS decision:  (pg 11)  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

"...But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . had no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.

At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former cate- gory. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else."

You literally proved I was right.  The SCotUS did not rule on the constitutionality of anything.  As has been said multiple times, they determined that the lower court did not adequately consider the case of foreign nationals with no ties to the US.  I don't think they're going to decide that the lower courts were right to prevent the government from stopping all persons from entry, but that (my opinion) and your opinion, have nothing to do with the constant claims you're making that the SCotUS has ruled on the constitutionality of the issue.  They have not.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • Flicker photos
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #81 on: July 09, 2017, 09:52:22 PM »

You literally proved I was right.  The SCotUS did not rule on the constitutionality of anything.  As has been said multiple times, they determined that the lower court did not adequately consider the case of foreign nationals with no ties to the US.  I don't think they're going to decide that the lower courts were right to prevent the government from stopping all persons from entry, but that (my opinion) and your opinion, have nothing to do with the constant claims you're making that the SCotUS has ruled on the constitutionality of the issue.  They have not.
Phil, you're spinning.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and the appeals court.  99.9% of the people in those 6 nations cannot enter the USA.  Trump won.  You know they say that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2017, 12:51:14 AM »

It did NOT reverse it.  You either really are just trolling or you have absolutely no understanding of law.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • Flicker photos
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #83 on: July 10, 2017, 01:10:47 AM »

Are the 99.9% of those people going to get into the US now?  Are they going to get in after SCOTUS decides the final case?


I say NO for both.  Trump won.  What do you say?
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #84 on: July 10, 2017, 02:03:27 AM »

From the 7 countries on the list, the total level of immigration to the US is just 2% of all immigrants, and immigrants make up 13% of the total population.  So that's 0.26% of the population from those places.  That's about 837,000 people in total.  In total - ever to have immigrated to the US.  It's less than about 25,000 people a year.  0.1% of that is 25.  Trump has, at most, managed to stop 25 people a year from entering the US, and that assumes that such people, particularly those intent on unleashing terror attacks, follow the laws.

Well done.

/golf clap

Do you feel safe yet?
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • Flicker photos
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #85 on: July 10, 2017, 09:21:07 AM »

From the 7 countries on the list, the total level of immigration to the US is just 2% of all immigrants, and immigrants make up 13% of the total population.  So that's 0.26% of the population from those places.  That's about 837,000 people in total.  In total - ever to have immigrated to the US.  It's less than about 25,000 people a year.  0.1% of that is 25.  Trump has, at most, managed to stop 25 people a year from entering the US, and that assumes that such people, particularly those intent on unleashing terror attacks, follow the laws.

Well done.

/golf clap

Do you feel safe yet?
So now you skirted answering the question with phony statistics.   You calculated that only 25 people per year from 6 nations total have no relationship to America who come to the US.  That's the equivalent of one family of 4 from each country visit the US.  Nonsense number.

Well I hope they enjoy Disneyland.





Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2266
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #86 on: July 10, 2017, 03:39:11 PM »

No, I looked at actual numbers of people who have come from those counties to the US since 1980.  Actual numbers.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • Flicker photos
Re: Political Violence
« Reply #87 on: July 10, 2017, 04:06:10 PM »

You said 25,000 per year and then multiplied by .1% and got 25.  Are you saying only .1% were people with no relationships to America?  1 out of 1000?  Only 4 people per country came to America from these 6 countries?  That's a screwball number. 

Here's an article I just found that shows about 53000 people from the 6 countries came in 2016. It's hard to distinguish the exact amount that were not connected to America but it could be about 80% or 40,000, certainly a lot more than 25.

 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whos-visiting-the-us-from-the-6-countries-on-trumps-travel-ban-we-break-it-down-2017-03-29
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up