The Democratic Party's war on American blue collar worker escalates and they forum shopped for a federal judge to back them up.
Now all we have to do is wait for a refugee to kill a few people and then charge that judge for accessory to murder and no pro immigration Democrat will ever hold office again
In response President Trump should cancel 100% of VISAs and green cards for anyone from those 7 countries. This would make the order irrelevant.
nope, the order is illegal and will die. - - - Updated - - - and then another Federal judge will simply file an injunction against Trump, again. No man is above the law.
Now we're talking. And what about the president's kids being off limits? Have you seen the stuff they said about 10 year old Barron Trump? If anyone had said anything like that about Obama's daughters we'd still be hearing about it,
No they are not, and the Constitution is perfectly clear on that point. Then it works in complete disregard of the Constitution - not that you give a damn for that, of course.
I can't find any evidence that the alleged Trump quotations in your signature are genuine. It's easy to google up Trump tweets, and these don't come up.
If it is illegal to temporarily ban travel from certain countries now, why was it not illegal under previous administrations? Be detailed in your response.
You shouldn't use google to search for Trump quotations. Or anything political they tend to skew things a bit.
You realize that those countries exempted have and still do support terrorism right? Egypt and Saudia Arabia funded and trained the 9/11 hijackers. Lebanon is the home country of Hezbollah, and still funds them. The UAE government, while working to keep terrorist groups out of their country, is known to have given money and supplies to both Al Queda and ISIS
Currently, the policy is aimed at citizens from country's that do not provide adequate records on their citizens. Are you arguing for the notion of expanding the ban beyond those parameters?
Lets see your proof of that? Source your argument. Are you actually referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which is an act that clarifies legislation created in the 1920s? The NYT makes this claim. It does no such thing. It actually abolished the old preferential quota system that was in place and put in place immigration law that was based on skills, etc. No ban on executive power to temporarily close immigration from any country has been put in place.