IGX

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

Is that the standard you've imposed on the country?

So this bitch doesn't even deny fed atty's reviewed it and found it legal (because it obviously is). She is just opposing it because it makes her sad. She has to be forcibly removed from her office. This is no different than if some AG has an epiphany and comes to oppose the death penalty: the remedy is to resign. God damn shitlibs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1a9b60a4c7

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

Okay, I'll bite - what does Obama altering refugee policy for Cuba as part of detente have to do with this?

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

Okay, I'll bite - what does Obama altering refugee policy for Cuba as part of detente have to do with this?

It's possible that Iran, like Cuba, wants to keep skilled professionals from leaving the country.

bennyonesix wrote:So this bitch doesn't even deny fed atty's reviewed it and found it legal (because it obviously is). She is just opposing it because it makes her sad. She has to be forcibly removed from her office. This is no different than if some AG has an epiphany and comes to oppose the death penalty: the remedy is to resign. God damn shitlibs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1a9b60a4c7

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

Okay, I'll bite - what does Obama altering refugee policy for Cuba as part of detente have to do with this?

It's possible that Iran, like Cuba, wants to keep skilled professionals from leaving the country.

No. It just goes to show how the powers given to the President in the 1925 Act have not been modified via the 1965 imm act.

bennyonesix wrote:Someone tell me what was illegal. Please read relevant docs before doing so. Or not, because you all are hysterical shitlbs.

He's stepping all over the Constitutional rights of Syrians, dumbass.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

Okay, I'll bite - what does Obama altering refugee policy for Cuba as part of detente have to do with this?

It's possible that Iran, like Cuba, wants to keep skilled professionals from leaving the country.

So your argument is that Trump is secretly negotiating with Tehran and that part of this negotiation is to placed on an executive order that was apparently written in the time it takes Bannon to snort an 8-ball and drink a fifth of gin?

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

Okay, I'll bite - what does Obama altering refugee policy for Cuba as part of detente have to do with this?

It's possible that Iran, like Cuba, wants to keep skilled professionals from leaving the country.

So your argument is that Trump is secretly negotiating with Tehran and that part of this negotiation is to placed on an executive order that was apparently written in the time it takes Bannon to snort an 8-ball and drink a fifth of gin?

I have no clue, but it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration-- I can see how Iran would want to avoid brain drain right now, and I would bet that the existing DoS capacity to effectively vet potential refugees from Iran is pretty poor. Bottom line-- it's too early to draw any real conclusions.

Turdacious wrote:it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration

So it's Obama's fault. That makes sense.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:How many terrorist attacks have Iranians committed on US soil?

You're assuming that, in the case of Iran, that the travel ban is our idea. It might not be. See the Cuba refugee policy under Obama: http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 31#p864396

Okay, I'll bite - what does Obama altering refugee policy for Cuba as part of detente have to do with this?

It's possible that Iran, like Cuba, wants to keep skilled professionals from leaving the country.

So your argument is that Trump is secretly negotiating with Tehran and that part of this negotiation is to placed on an executive order that was apparently written in the time it takes Bannon to snort an 8-ball and drink a fifth of gin?

I have no clue, but it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration-- I can see how Iran would want to avoid brain drain right now, and I would bet that the existing DoS capacity to effectively vet potential refugees from Iran is pretty poor. Bottom line-- it's too early to draw any real conclusions.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM[/youtube]

Protobuilder wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Someone tell me what was illegal. Please read relevant docs before doing so. Or not, because you all are hysterical shitlbs.

He's stepping all over the Constitutional rights of Syrians, dumbass.

Bottom line is people with green cards have some rights here. Not all of the rights of a citizen, but some. Those were arguably infringed. The concern was "irreparable harm" in the judges blocking the deportations of green card holders. Heck, everybody has some rights. You can't just kill or enslave an illegal immigrant, even.

This is mostly about the stupidity of execution. Poorly written, unvetted by professionals, did not prepare the playing field, did not inform key implementers, not actually going to keep out or get rid of the most likely perps, optics scream muslim ban thus handing propaganda victory to ISIS and Al Qaeda, also shouts don't mess with countries that Trump is doing business with, pisses off important Allies, etc. WIN!

It could have been implemented a million times smarter, but that would have required smarter people in charge.

MEME MAJICK IZ REEL...PRAZE KEK

Didn't Obama just deport a bunch a Russians who broke no laws?

Oh wait, they're rich so it's ok

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration

So it's Obama's fault. That makes sense.

I predict that in 20 years, opening up relations with Iran will be considered Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement. Either way, it's still to early to tell what this all means. If it's just a pause while the new administration gets a handle on refugee policy and administration, it will mean little to nothing. Or it may be a new direction. I don't really know and neither does anybody else.

nafod wrote:

Protobuilder wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Someone tell me what was illegal. Please read relevant docs before doing so. Or not, because you all are hysterical shitlbs.

He's stepping all over the Constitutional rights of Syrians, dumbass.

Bottom line is people with green cards have some rights here. Not all of the rights of a citizen, but some. Those were arguably infringed. The concern was "irreparable harm" in the judges blocking the deportations of green card holders. Heck, everybody has some rights. You can't just kill or enslave an illegal immigrant, even.

This is mostly about the stupidity of execution. Poorly written, unvetted by professionals, did not prepare the playing field, did not inform key implementers, not actually going to keep out or get rid of the most likely perps, optics scream muslim ban thus handing propaganda victory to ISIS and Al Qaeda, also shouts don't mess with countries that Trump is doing business with, pisses off important Allies, etc. WIN!

It could have been implemented a million times smarter, but that would have required smarter people in charge.

And the administration doesn't have an AG confirmed yet. Must suck to be Jeff Sessions right now.

Turdacious wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration

So it's Obama's fault. That makes sense.

I predict that in 20 years, opening up relations with Iran will be considered Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement.

If we could nuke the Mullahs, Iranians/Persians would be a thousand times better allies than the Arabs.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration

So it's Obama's fault. That makes sense.

I predict that in 20 years, opening up relations with Iran will be considered Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement.

If we could nuke the Mullahs, Iranians/Persians would be a thousand times better allies than the Arabs.

Even with the Mullahs, it's not hard to make an argument that they're effective allies. The things they've done to stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan; lower oil prices; and stem the uncontrolled flow of economic migrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan from emigrating to Europe are all in our national interest.

Turdacious wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:it is plausible that it's in effect a continuation of a policy put in place during the Obama administration

So it's Obama's fault. That makes sense.

I predict that in 20 years, opening up relations with Iran will be considered Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement.

One of the only good things he's done.

bennyonesix wrote:So this bitch doesn't even deny fed atty's reviewed it and found it legal (because it obviously is). She is just opposing it because it makes her sad. She has to be forcibly removed from her office. This is no different than if some AG has an epiphany and comes to oppose the death penalty: the remedy is to resign. God damn shitlibs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1a9b60a4c7

Did you get your law degree from Trump University?

bennyonesix wrote:So this bitch doesn't even deny fed atty's reviewed it and found it legal (because it obviously is). She is just opposing it because it makes her sad. She has to be forcibly removed from her office. This is no different than if some AG has an epiphany and comes to oppose the death penalty: the remedy is to resign. God damn shitlibs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 1a9b60a4c7

I agree she had to go. She forced the issue.

The OLC found it legal, but she argued that comments made by the principal and his surrogates, spoke to intent, which is part of the law. Rudy Giuliani probably wishes he hadn't said on TV that weekend that, "Trump asked us to find a way to legally ban muslims and this is what we came up with." A religious test is illegal.

B16 is trollling and not even well.

Where the Law Was Broken....

There's a huge amount written on this. I've read only a 1/4 of probably including the EO, the statutory authority, the pleadings and injunction. It's pretty well established set of laws, some of which he's on solid ground, (declining to issue visas) some of which is on decent footing but hasn't been fully vetted with this fact pattern (rescinding visas and deporting without due process) and one glaring one that he's very likely to be shown to be dead wrong (essentially rescinding green cards without due process, deportations without process and disallowing green card and visa holders already on US soil access to both attorneys and due process)

It's beginning to look like DHS legal knew that green card holders in the US should not be included in the EO but were overruled by the Exec. Due process clause violations WRT the existing regulations is the part that's on really shakey ground. This is going to be teh center of the challenge including one by several states including Washington

nafod wrote: I agree she had to go. She forced the issue.

do you see that during her senate confirmation, jeff sessions asked if she would have the balls to say "no" to the president.

we now know the answer. is sessions similarly hung?