SUPREME COURT WILL REVIEW TRUMP TRAVEL BAN, ALLOWS IT TO TAKE EFFECT IN MOST INSTANCES

So again what does that have to do with the KSA and now?

 

Wouldn't the first thing be to allow women to simply DRIVE, and to stop discriminating against non-Muslims by actually allowing them into Mecca if they choose?

 

Yeah, but oil > sugar and fine cigars.............sayin

 

We do that already and have been doing that.

4 Reasons Why the Trump Administration Didn’t Include Saudi Arabia In Its Travel Ban…

#1 The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is an ally of the US. In fact, they are as much of an enemy of Jihadist groups as we are.

#2. Strong Internal Vetting Abilities: Saudi vs Yemen

#3 – President Trump’s travel ban will incentivize the Saudis to crack down on problematic activities by religious charities or private citizens

#4 – Saudi Arabia as leader of the Sunni Arab world is too important of an ally for the US to neglect.s

Further elaboration here https://theweichertreport.com/2017/...didnt-include-saudi-arabia-in-its-travel-ban/

 

They are the holy land of Islam - the keepers of Mecca - and Muslims around the world won't even pressure them by advocating a boycott of Mecca....Muslims don't care about, say, the women and gays and Jews in Saudi that are treated as second-class citizens. Trump doesn't appear to care about those in Saudi, EITHER, to be honest.

 

Thank you for answering for me.

The problem with islam is not the fundamentalists. It's the fundamentals of islam.

 

Can't even get your facts straight it seems.

WHY didn't Trump order the in depth review of vetting procedures on Jan 21st or whenever he first threw up the travel ban? Why did he take no action in this regard DESPITE having complete authority to do so?

If you are now claiming he already did do that, then the 90 day travel ban doesn't need to be implemented at all since the reason for doing so has been satisfied.

 

I think the test should be, to what extent can we depend on a government to not intentionally export terrorism, not "to what extent are terrorists from a given country."

No one but the nuts believes the Saudi government intended 9-11.

We've also got to remember that we have more interest in staying on good terms with Saudi Arabia than we do with Somalia, I'm sorry, we just do, and the State Department has no doubt written long, detailed memos outlining the pros and cons of the ban as to each country. Foreign policy is chess, not checkers, nothing against checkers.

 

Please don't confuse them with logic. It makes them look stupid.

 

I'd like to know how this will happen, and what it means specifically.

"#3 – President Trump’s travel ban will incentivize the Saudis to crack down on problematic activities by religious charities or private citizens"


Oh, and #2 - of course they're "vetted". The Saudi government knows who it is funding.

Care to address the links I gave you?

 

Smart AND you have a keen memory - "I'm going to be watching you"!
For some reason I can't stop quoting Sir Kinnison:

 

no worries we are both guilty of misunderstanding each other at times.

I totally agree that those countries don't have the ability to properly vet their emigrants. My question is simply why hasn't the administration done something about it from their end as a priority? Its my understanding that the travel ban suspension didn't effect the administrations authority to establish immigration criteria for any and all incoming people.

 

Well, at least this holding confirms that Gorsuch is going to be a kneejerk, Conservative Zombie (in the Thomas/Alito mold).

October is going to be interesting.

 

The decision was unanimous.
Don't you feel silly?

 

LOL ~ What's the matter, FS - you wanna do the Hajj?

I'm all for equal treatment but this infidel couldn't care less about Mecca and what's in it...

 

Here's the punch line. The ban is a temporary 90-day ban, whilst "extreme-vetting" procedures are implemented. By the time the SCOTUS reviews it, it will have already expired, rendering moot the need to review it.

 

Because there is no government there to work with so there is little we can do here and we ddon't want hordes of inverted immigrants coming here, where they would then obtain some constitutional protections, and then have to send them back.

 

Huh all the judges voted enforcing the ban was constitutional, in fact not one of them had anything favorable or nice to say about the lower courts. I guess Ole Gorsuch was just following Ruth's lead. The SCOTUS actually uses the constitution as a guide vs the political feelings.

 

The legal precedent is invaluable. The court re-affirming that the POTUS has absolute authority on immigration will be a decision for the ages. The SCOTUS also ruled in favor of a Catholic pre school today, and hopefully gives a favorable ruling on the infamous wedding cake dispute.

 

But wait! Didn't we have our very own PF Chief Justice of the Peanut Gallery Circuit telling us the order was unconstitutional?

 

You could be petty and revisit the old threads ... not that I'd encourage such childish behavior just for the sake of entertainment.

 

This was a 90 day ban to improve vetting. It's been more than 90 days so why do we still need it?

 

Unless they extend it which is certainly a distinct possibility. The issue is also separation of powers now and THAT has to be addressed by the SCOTUS.

 

Saudi Arabia is not a failed state incapable of vetting. Saudi Arabia was also not named by the US Dept. of State as a State Sponsor of Terrorism during the Obama administration which is what Trump's EO was based on.

The list changes from time to time. There are bad actors in every country but as a whole, Saudi Arabia is not a threat to the US.

 

True.