caretaker

Bless all the Sergeants and W/O 1's ...

magnumpi

Premier Selfie has spoken on twitter

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted Saturday, "To those fleeing persecution, terror (and) war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith."

Stinkypup

So anyone currently living South of our border then...

dbd33

The problem is not that but prioritizing one set of batshit crazies over another. The Constitution obliges the President to treat people of all religions equally.

JamesM

OPEC reducing it's supply of oil would be good for Canada. The price would rise and the Oil Sands would suddenly be viable again ending the Alberta recession.

scrubbedexpat091

"a federal judge granted an emergency stay for people who have already arrived in the United States and those who are in transit, and who hold valid visas, ruling they can legally enter the country."

"individuals with refugee applications approved by US Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the US Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States."

Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves - CNNPolitics.com

Who said this in December 2015?

“Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."

magnumpi

Isn't this what Americans voted for tho

morpeth

So the establishment clause Constitution applies to non-citizens ? Furthermore, if your understanding correct a ban on all Muslims would be more against constitution than banning some who could be security threats.

Whether his actions were correct or not, especially concerning green card holders, is another matter.

dbd33

Yes.

morpeth

So how does constitution apply to non residents and non citizens ?

Also isn't the ban in reference to certain countries not religion ? Whether ban good policy is another matter but I don't see banning non citizens from certain countries is unconstitutional- USA has done this for years.

dbd33

Here's how the Muslim ban is unconstitutional:

Here are all the parts of the Constitution Trump’s Muslim ban violates.

Here's how the Muslim ban isn't the same as recent restrictions on Iraqi refugees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7f33cdeb9f19

Did you have some other restriction in mind?

The idea that this isn't a Muslim ban is farcical, what the countries have in common is majority Muslim populations and no Trump enterprises. Besides, he promised a Muslim ban and his henchman, Guliani, says this is it.

morpeth

Quite unconvincing as the US has long had restrictions related to certain countries around the globe. If for example the US had restrictions on travel or business with Iran, and majority of Iranian's are Muslim does that mean it is a unfair to Muslims ? If the ban was on Muslims why does it not include all Muslim countries ?

I am unaware the US constitution states anywhere that it relates to foreign citizens not residing in the US. It would be absurd if it did, and there would be a mountain of lawsuits from all over the world about consular decisions on visas, and all sorts of discrimination overtly against certain groups that would not be accepted in the USA.

I do not know enough though related to green card holders whether there is a legal issue about aspects of the ban. I suspect if in the country there is more protection than while out of country.

That doesn't mean I support the ban as I find there are some serious flaws in the logic employed to justify the ban, and the practical methods of implementing it. My opinion is considering the state of the Middle East and ISIS stated aims, it seems that during the Obama administration there were relatively few terrorist attacks than one might have suspected on US soil. I have no doubt informally the Obama administration targeted certain countries for more vetting , and if Trump considered more extensive vetting necessary, this could have been done quietly. Second, with Saudi Arabia not on the list, the ban seems designed for political impact as opposed to a comprehensive policy.

If the system needs better vetting which from statements by the CIA and FBI directors my understanding implies, then being cautious makes sense. Infuriating many in the world, especially the UK which is America's closest ally, when the same effect could have been achieved quietly, is an example of the troubling worry about how Trump will govern.

dbd33

Yes, he's certainly going to cause himself more grief than necessary by adopting an antagonistic style. The constitutional issues will play out in the courts so we can wait and see what's determined on those.

Certainly the ban is for political impact. Perhaps Trump calculates that his supporters think of Saudi as a country with oil, not a country with Muslims.

Today the Supreme Court nominee. I suppose it's too much to hope that Trump is a free spirit and picks Garland.

caretaker

Saudi Sheiks strolling into Trump hotels in the US spending hundreds of thousands couldn't happen if they were banned. Those are his peer group, they don't insult him, at least not in public.

dbd33

He's never going to be able to rise above suspicion of conflict, is he? No matter how scrupulous he is, no matter how carefully he considered the history of peaceful relations between Saudi citizens and the US before making his decision, there will always be people who think Trump puts himself first.