Trump's Travel Ban Gets Support From 13 States

Finally our legally elected President is getting some well-earned support for his travel ban from countries so disrupted by terrorism and upheaval that they cannot properly vet their own travelers. The brief states what many on here have also said--the decision made in a federal court against the ban are unconstitutional.

Newsy's link to the brief:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.go...il&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

"Twelve attorneys general and one governor from 13 Republican-led states have filed an amicus brief supporting Trump's ban as it goes to a federal appeals court.

Attorneys general from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia joined with Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi to file the brief. The Trump administration is currently appealing a decision made by a federal judge in Maryland.

The brief argues the courts are infringing on Trump's constitutional ability to make national security decisions by blocking his order."

http://www.newsy.com/stories/13-states-file-to-support-trump-s-travel-ban-in-legal-fight/

 

I'm disappointed that Michigan is not on that list.

 

You have too many potential Jihadists living there already.

Muslim intimidation at work. That's how it begins.

 

Of course, the deep red states are going to side with Trump.

I was looking at least for something in the New England area or of that nature. Not in the deep south or the great plains where Trump's never questioned.

 

Yes; apparently the brainwashing in New England has been rather complete. It's really a shame to try to talk to apparently intelligent people and realize how far gone they are. The human growth movement appears to have been infiltrated and almost totally taken over by progressive Marxists.

 

Only 13 states are willing to put their name on the line defending this idiotic order?

 

Too bad those in the judicial branch (plus 37 state AG's) ain't feelin' the love, eh?

 

Why is it idiotic?

 

What, may I ask, is idiotic about the travel ban? The court has over reached and eventually will be over turned. Anyone entering the United States is our guest and we have a right to grant or deny access.

 

yea they are hiding under your bed, they took the place of the commies

 

You know that every good fascist government needs both an internal and external enemy to rally their people against.
For a while there, the US was lost when the "evil empire" collapsed under its own weight, but it didn't take long to find a great new enemy of the the American Way in Muslims. Internally of course those damn illegal immigrants are stealing american jobs and money and sucking welfare and medicaid dry.

 

All I ever hear on TV is Russia Russia russia.

Ps. Ty Florida for joining in.

 

No--you did that.

 

Yes, because Putin has a vision of a RussianEurasian Empire restoring the Rodina as the leading nation in the world. All he has to do is de-stablize America and the EU while stirring up trouble in other places. Ah the power of social media these days when used in coordinated targeted messaging, fake news dissemination, paid trolls, and of course hacking to go along with the usual spy crap like agent placement/recruitment, blackmail, character assassination, etc. etc.

 

I thought that was Hillary's schtick.

 

You wish to know why I think the travel ban is idiotic?

Well, it is unconstitutional in my view because it was passed with a discriminatory intent of harming a specific religion.

But the reason that I believe it is idiotic is because the order is extremely unlikely to accomplish its stated goal, i.e. helping to stop terrorist attacks. The order issues a blanket travel ban from those countries which harms both American citizens and foreign travelers, the overwhelming percentage of whom are good and helpful to the U.S. If those individuals are harmed and thereby more likely to be sympathetic to the ones who do wish us harm, then the ban is making terrorism more likely. And the chance that a would-be terrorist is prevented from entering the country solely because of this travel ban (and not because they are known to the intelligence community and placed on a no-fly list, for example) is EXTREMELY small.

In other words, the cost severely outweighs the benefit.

 

Please see above.

 

Im sorry to point out yet another example of you being wrong.

 

The Saudis that were in the United States were a very small percentage but they took down two beautiful towers with planes, crashed a plane into the pentagon and a third plane was diverted from Washington by some brave Americans and crashed in a field in Pa. The death toll was 2,996 and over 6000 wounded. Many are still dying and suffer from the exposer to the dust. The lives of the families for many were destroyed that day. The Muslim communities showed little remorse and many were happy about it and still are. So, with a little, much pain can be done. I'm sure the people of Boston have the same fears and anxieties as the people of New York. It is undeclared, but in the minds of the majority of Americans, in our hearts we are at war with radical Islam and have a healthy fear of the religion.

 

You mean where the men are men, the women are women, and common sense reigns supreme.

 

Did this travel ban suddenly change so that it targets Saudi Arabia AND gain the ability to travel back in time?!

Seriously, address the issues that I raised.

 

Oh, I Believe, it should include Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It all boils down to the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's a hell of a way to run foreign policy. Remember, this was, Obama's ban first.

 

A) Not Obama's ban in any shape or form.
B) You still are not addressing why a complete travel ban is even remotely close to the best way to prevent terrorist attacks. Consider the fact that country of origin is really poor predictor of whether someone will engage in terrorist attacks.
C) You just recognized a reason why this travel is idiotic. It doesn't even address two of the countries which have resulted in the most deaths for Americans. Instead, it bans six countries who, collectively, have caused, on US soil, ZERO American deaths in the last 15 years.

 

I suppose it would be unseemly to ask for a bit of proof...although it does seem Hil's approach may have been geared more to funds accumulation for the Clinton Foundation than to actually helping the US's legitimate standing in the world.

 

Actually two have been from those countries. They were children, I'll give you. Yet, they were radicalized and influenced by Al-qaeda and Isis propaganda. Many of those who have attacked the states took trips over to the Middle East and learned how to become terrorist. All these countries have become unstable and have had an increase in Isis activity. Iran has been involved in spreading terror or helping to expand it's network of anti-American hate.
It is better to be safe than sorry. Why are you so interested in open borders for Muslims from those countries? What is wrong extreme vetting?

I also would add Pakistan to the ban.