Beoz

Why didn't Obama put Saudi on the list? Should be easy for you to answer.

morpeth

Of course the judge should be interpreting the law, not letting personal opinions affect his rulings. Wasn't that the issue about the judge of Mexican heritage, that Trump was accusing him of letting personal bias affect is rulings ?

I said simply I would hope Trump has more information than the judge, I would have assumed that is obvious. I quite agree based on his pre-election comments Trump seemed pre-disposed to this type of ban. To be realistic and not naïve, I am sure the Obama administration looked more closely at individuals from those countries than say from Norway or Switzerland, just did so more quietly.

It will be quite interesting what the final legal result will be. I think it will end up he can ban foreign citizens from entering but not green card holders, but I don't know enough about the particulars of the law in this instance to know what is probable. Trump can easily in 90 days relax the ban, say he has imposed more extreme vetting, and have a win for his supporters, then over time less outrage about this - he certainly will find other things to outrage people about !

Beoz

The Obama administration passed a bill last year preventing those from VWP countries using the VWP if they had travelled to these countries.

Apparently based on an increase of Muslim/American terror related activities, plots, etc of which all perpetrators admitted influence from ISIS and other middle east based organisations.

knockoff nige

Obviously I agree that a Judge should keep personal opinions to one side and apply the law based on facts. That wasn't my point.

Big difference as the Obama administration wasn't being blatantly and publicly ignorant to all travellers from those countries. And didn't have a twitter hissy fit every 5 hours when they didn't get their way. Whatever Trump was briefed on since his inauguration, he's acting now upon impulse and ignorance, not advice from intelligence agencies.

If there is a compromise made on this ban and it get's re-instated in a diluted format than it will be another disgrace. Trump has already raised the threat to the USA significantly by implementing this ban. The threat has gone even higher by him crying on the internet about it. The guy needs to be removed immediately.

OzTennis

You continually fail to comment on the lack of gun control. It isn't a separate issue from the travel ban. Trump is on a mission to rid America of the 'bad people' so does he do anything about the 300+ murders a week and the bad people within?

I am not a 'left winger'. (to you maybe)

Would these threats be identified by the intelligence services Trump has been at war with and tweeted about them acting like Nazi Germany etc? You can't suddenly come out with a travel ban based on information from the services he has criticised can you?

Trump has overstepped the mark by banning Muslims and from 7 specific countries in that it violates some of the core principles of the Constitution and ignored some laws passed by Congress in 1952 to give the President limited executive power. A fact which can't be ignored is that NOBODY from the 7 countries has committed a terrorist act on US soil.

OzTennis

As I understand it the judge (appointed by George W Bush and a staunch Republican, who is described by his legal colleagues as a 'judges judge') is not ruling on the terrorist threat but whether the President under 1952 Congress legislation designed to give limited Executive power to the President to make his 'own decisions' had the power to do this. That's what the hearing will decide - they'll take arguments from lawyers who believe no and Trump's appointed Justice Department lawyers who will say yes. It's about whether these things need to go through Congress or whether the President acting alone can decide in simple terms I guess. Just because you won an election doesn't give carte blanche to get Steve Bannon to make up executive orders willy nilly which you sign and then defend by tweets.

morpeth

Quite correct in my view that the judge hear both sides and decides whether Trump had authority under the law to do this.

morpeth

I think you are quite correct , if the issue is making America safer from violent acts whether of terrorists or criminals, while the solutions may be different the goal is the same. If it reduces the terror threat by putting restrictions on people coming in from certain countries, by the same token why not look at what could be done to reduce domestic-source violent acts.

OzTennis

Because a lot of his supporters don't see a link between an average of > 1 gun per person and the murder rate?

Because they perceive a threat from Mexicans, coloured people and muslims and want to be armed to the teeth?

Because his supporters don't see this as a real problem or one which can't be addressed; one of the posters on here even said it was part of American life and self-inflicted!!!

There are now growing calls to impeach the President for contravening the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution. (trust deeds show he is still in ultimate control of the trust set up when he became President).
Why We're Calling for Congress to Impeach Donald Trump | Time.com

Former White House counsel John Dean, who served President Nixon from 1970 to 1973, told The Atlantic magazine: “I don’t think Richard Nixon even comes close to the level of corruption we already know about Trump.”

morpeth

I lived in a part of USA for a while were many guys hunted, and most guy had guns at home, and the crime rate was quite low. While I think guns are two freely available in many instances, I am not sure tighter gun laws are enough to curb the violence though tightening loopholes that guns can be bought without a background check would be a good start. And while in that area yes some had guns for ideological reasons (mainly fear of what the federal government might do in the future) I never did hear anyone say they had three to four weapons at home because of fear of Muslim attacks. A lot is just tradition.

OzTennis

I've seen estimates that only 3% of Americans have guns and I've seen estimates far above that (e.g. Wiki - 37 to 42% of homes have at least one gun) The fact that they don't seem to know exactly who has guns is in itself frightening. It is an extremely complex issue of course but as long as the Constitution has the 2nd and 14th amendments and the Supreme Court upholds the right to bear arms for self-defence they will be used for purposes other than that. Trump is sure not going to do anything about it for the next 4 years - if he sees out his term.

The other thought is we'll never know exactly the reasons why people want a gun for self-defence (as in who do they perceive as a threat because you won't have to fill that in on the form). Trump is sure doing his best to stir up the thought that muslims are a threat.

Beoz

3 different topics here sport.

Nazi Germany, gun control, and placing temporary bans on those who the are from countries the Obama administation deemed as threats.

If you want to discuss gun control discuss it but stop reaching to me for a discussion.

If you want to discuss temporary travel bans go for it but you are trying to draw parallels between the two and there are no parallels. You are trying to create one because you know the facts are going to limit your argument to be an annoying lefty. Stick to the facts - its far to easy to bring you down if you start talking feelings.

Yes it will be fleshed out whether Trump can put in those travel bans or not. So what?

By the time that's over, so might be the 90 days and the extreme vetting measures may be in place. From what I can see, Obama already cancelled the use of the VWP program for VWP holders who have visited these countries. It was all based on the Paris shootings apparently. A VWP citizen could travel to Syria, be trained, then enter the US with minimal scrutiny. I can see their point. Both Obama and Trump. Not an easy solution here if their aim is to prevent those who have been radicalised and trained in terror hotspots from entering the country.

astera

Kudos to the Speaker for standing up and doing what's right at a time when politicians would sell themselves out to anyone, and especially on a day when May was hosting a known, Middle-eastern terrorist who should never get to travel to the UK. Though I do admire the way she left that clown stranded outside with the door shut.

Bercow stood up for what's right which is an admirable thing to do, especially given the fact that he's up against a "so-called president" who's nothing more than a racist, sexist, hate-spreading fool. Someone has to keep such filth out.

Beoz

You see the hypocrisy the lefties bring to world order?

That's the exact reason why you and your mate cannot be taken seriously.

scrubbedexpat098

Jonathon Pie on the money again