Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:36 am

Staffers for congressional Republicans helped draft Trump's refugee ban without informing their employers, then signed nondisclosure agreements, Politico reports. The ban, signed Friday evening, reportedly blindsided GOP legislators, who had not been consulted or informed of the executive order. But senior staff with the House Judiciary Committee reportedly worked in secret with members of the Trump administration to draft the ban, which bars immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte was not "consulted by the administration on the executive order," an aide told Politico. These aides reportedly began working on the legislation during Trump's transition period, before his Jan. 20 inauguration. Their secret work and alleged nondisclosure agreements are highly unusual in Congress, where legislators complained of being given no advance notice of the executive order.

READ IT AT POLITICO

by Original Quill Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:13 pm

Well...it was an executive order, not legislation. But you are right in that it shows a clear schism between Trump's White Populist/Nationalist faction and the Republicans.

by Independent Thoughts Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:36 pm

Why would you go to Congress about this, to begin with? It's only "done behind Congress' back" if there was a disclosure requirement that was intentionally avoided. There was no such thing.
As OQ mentioned, this was an Executive Order. Consultation with Congress is not required or necessary.
Secondly, it's a 120 day ban -- not a permanent one. It would have taken longer than the ban, itself, to push through Congress, than via Exec Order.

Where were the protests and shouts of Islamophobia and bigotry when Obama did the exact same thing to those coming from Iraq? Trump's ban is for 4 months. Obama's ban on Iraqi visas was 6 months!
http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-program-for-6-months/

If it weren't for double standards, Liberals would haven any standards at all. Even MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host went off about this:

Scarborough attacked Obama’s “self-righteous” attitude, and said he was the one who started the Syrian refugee crisis in the first place with his failed “red line.”
“Barack Obama actually had a de facto ban against Syrian refugees from 2011 to 2015,” Scarborough said. “The Syrian refugee crisis began because of Barack Obama’s inaction. I think everybody will say, and history will say, the “red line” moment. These seven countries that were selected were selected by Barack Obama. These weren’t selected by Stephen Miller.”

Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry drew a “red line” with Syrian President Bashar Assad in August 2012. They said they would not tolerate “seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” The pair did nothing to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad after he continued to use chemical weapons a year later.

“This is rank hypocrisy on Barack Obama’s part for shutting Syrians out for years and now acting shocked and dopely saddened that Donald Trump would basically in effect do the same thing,” Scarborough said. “People should keep their mouth shut and not be self-righteous when their policies led to this stage.”

(Video at source, below)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/31/rank-hypocrisy-joe-scarborough-slams-obamas-response-to-travel-ban-video/

It's simply more of the same. Except someone within the Republican party is doing it, now, so it's suddenly a bad idea and awful.
Some Liberals are such whiny do-nothing hypocrites. This is why they've net a significant loss in elections over the past six years.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:38 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Why would you go to Congress about this, to begin with? It's only "done behind Congress' back" if there was a disclosure requirement that was intentionally avoided. There was no such thing.
As OQ mentioned, this was an Executive Order. Consultation with Congress is not required or necessary.
Secondly, it's a 120 day ban -- not a permanent one. It would have take longer than the ban, itself, to push through Congress, than via Exec Order.

Where were the protests and shouts of Islamophobia and bigotry when Obama did the exact same thing to those coming from Iraq? Trumps ban is for 4 months. Obama's ban on Iraqi visas was 6 months!
http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-program-for-6-months/

If it weren't for double standards, Liberals would haven any standards at all. Even MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host went off about this:

Scarborough attacked Obama’s “self-righteous” attitude, and said he was the one who started the Syrian refugee crisis in the first place with his failed “red line.”
“Barack Obama actually had a de facto ban against Syrian refugees from 2011 to 2015,” Scarborough said. “The Syrian refugee crisis began because of Barack Obama’s inaction. I think everybody will say, and history will say, the “red line” moment. These seven countries that were selected were selected by Barack Obama. These weren’t selected by Stephen Miller.”

Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry drew a “red line” with Syrian President Bashar Assad in August 2012. They said they would not tolerate “seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” The pair did nothing to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad after he continued to use chemical weapons a year later.

“This is rank hypocrisy on Barack Obama’s part for shutting Syrians out for years and now acting shocked and dopely saddened that Donald Trump would basically in effect do the same thing,” Scarborough said. “People should keep their mouth shut and not be self-righteous when their policies led to this stage.”

(Video at source, below)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/31/rank-hypocrisy-joe-scarborough-slams-obamas-response-to-travel-ban-video/

It's simply more of the same. Except someone within the Republican party is doing it, now, so it's suddenly a bad idea and awful.
Some Liberals are such whiny do-nothing hypocrites. This is why they've lost the past six elections.

President Donald Trump's travel ban on seven Muslim-majority nations has attracted a worldwide wave of condemnation.
A string of claims have been made - including by the US President himself - to justify the policy. But how true are they?

1. MuslimBan
Trended number one worldwide on Twitter. However, Donald Trump's travel ban is not a ban on Muslims.
It is a ban on people from seven Muslim majority countries - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, the Sudan, Libya and the Yemen. Syrian refugees will be banned indefinitely (beyond the 90 days applied to the seven countries) and it bars the entry of any refugees currently awaiting settlement in the US.

It does discriminate against Muslims, though, because minority religions, mostly Christians, may be exempt from the refugee ban after 120 days.

2. Trump ban v Obama's 2011 ban
It is claimed Donald Trump's travel ban is similar to what Barack Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. However, Obama responded to an actual threat, whereas Trump issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. Obama's actions have been described as a "refugee application slowdown".

Obama did not ban Iraqis on a wholesale basis and Iraqis continued to be allowed to enter the US but at a slower rate. The key issue here is that restrictions in the past have reflected actionable intelligence. There is no evidence that these banned countries are the sources of an extra threat level to the US.

3. No. of people affected by ban
Donald Trump's administration has said only 109 people out of 325,000were affected by the travel ban. However, this figure doesn't take into account people trying to board planes, people detained once their flight landed and visa holders. With this in mind, it's been suggested the figure is close to 90,000.
Tens of thousands of people will be affected immediately and more as the 120 days wear on.

4. Trump is fulfilling a campaign pledge
Donald Trump actually promised a total ban on Muslims coming into the US and "extreme vetting". The former is illegal under the US constitution. But his opponents failed to comprehend just how ignorant he is on the legal system of his own country.

5. The seven countries were identified by Obama administration as sources of terror
This claim by the President on Sunday is so misleading as to be comical. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, the rest came from the Lebanon, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates.
None of these countries are on the banned list - nor is Pakistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda have bases or Tunisia - the biggest supplier of fighters to Islamic State. Belgium or France which are the home countries of numerous terrorists behind recent attacks are also not on the list.

6. White House to ask foreign visitors for social media info and mobile phone contacts
This is reported by CNN. Such a move would be pointless as actual terrorists don't wander about with their phones carrying secret contact information.

7. No attacks have come from any of the seven countries highlighted in recent years
Not true. Plots have been foiled that do involve people who have connections with these countries.

8. Travel ban will make the US safe again
The United States is relatively safe from terrorist attacks especially those perpetrated by foreigners. Right-wing extremists probably pose as much of a threat as other "home grown" or "lone wolf" Islamic terrorists. And in any case, the term "terrorist" has a fluid meaning. Does it only now apply to Muslims? Are white supremacists who use violence not terrorists?

The travel ban, focused on Muslim majority countries, will not make America safer. It will expose the US to the continued charge of hypocrisy and double standards which are part of the cause of anti-American feeling around the world, especially in those parts of the world where the US is conducting military operations.
It's not possible to claim to be a country that sees all people as equal under the law - and then showing that this is not the case.

Those who have helped the US in their wars in Iraq in particular will feel deeply betrayed. Combine that with pre-existing fear and hatred for the US and the spread of fundamentalist Wahhabi ideology - recruitment to extremism is bound to grow.

When al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks it intended to create a clash of civilisations between the Islamic and the Western worlds.

That is what Osama bin Laden got in 2001 - and what Donald Trump has continued to deliver, just like Barack Obama and George W Bush before him.

http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-travel-ban-fact-checked-how-the-claims-measure-up-10749909

by Independent Thoughts Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:12 pm

Okay? And?
I didn't see anything in your text or link that says the US must let anyone in that wants to come in. Nor did I read anywhere that the US doesn't reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone it wants.
What Trump did isn't unprecedented.
The protests are about the President -- not his policies. Typical Liberal crybaby politics.

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:26 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Okay? And?
I didn't see anything in your text or link that says the US must let anyone in that wants to come in. Nor did I read anywhere that the US doesn't reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone it wants.
What Trump did isn't unprecedented.
The protests are about the President -- not his policies. Typical Liberal crybaby politics.

You made claims they were comparable, and as seen they were not.
So you agree to ban people solely being based off the nation they come from, even where they have helped the US in the fight on terrorism? Maybe you can tell the ones who have helped the US, that they are crybabies?
This is not about refusing entry, but banning simply by the nation that they are born to, not any proper vetting. You do understand the difference do you not?

by Original Quill Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:09 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Okay? And?
I didn't see anything in your text or link that says the US must let anyone in that wants to come in. Nor did I read anywhere that the US doesn't reserve the right to refuse entry to anyone it wants.
What Trump did isn't unprecedented.
The protests are about the President -- not his policies. Typical Liberal crybaby politics.

I think the thorn here, IT, is that it's thinly veiled religious discrimination, prohibited by the First Amendment.

It started out as Trump announcing it was religious discrimination. Then they dressed it up and put on cheap perfume so as to disguise the smell...and it's come back as limitations on certain countries.

The proof is in the fact that 1) it doesn't have any rationale, the countries to which the ban applies have nothing to do with 9/11; and 2) it makes exceptions for christians, bringing us right back to what it is...religious discrimination. All of the banned nations are Muslim, while the 9/11 terrorists took off from Germany; and France and Belgium have had worse terrorism, yet they are not Muslim...and not banned.

Any way you slice it, it's religious discrimination. It draws a circle around Muslims and leaves all others alone. In Title VII cases, we call that a pretext for discrimination. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).

by Independent Thoughts Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:37 pm

OQ wrote:...it's thinly veiled religious discrimination...

That falicy is a misleading Liberal talking point.
Again, Obama (not Trump or his administration) labeled the 7 banned countries. Perhaps Obama has it in for Muslims, eh?

The ban affects those coming from those 7 geographical areas. That includes Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, Smurf Worshippers, Scientoligists... all of them.
It's a ban on anyone coming from within the borders of those 7 nations, religion notwithstanding.

OQ wrote:
Any way you slice it, it's religious discrimination. It draws a circle around Muslims and leaves all others alone. In Title VII cases, we call that a pretext for discrimination. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981)

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine is a sexual discrimination case between an employee and employer. How is that at all relevant to this discussion? I didn't hear anyone mention Bill Clinton or Monica Lewinsky.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:03 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
OQ wrote:...it's thinly veiled religious discrimination...

That falicy is a misleading Liberal talking point.
Again, Obama (not Trump or his administration) labeled the 7 banned countries. Perhaps Obama has it in for Muslims, eh?

So, you want to take the position that it isn’t religious, even after Trump initially characterized in as religious? Perhaps the king isn’t naked after all.

IT wrote:The ban affects those coming from those 7 geographical areas. That includes Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, Smurf Worshippers, Scientoligists... all of them.
It's a ban on anyone coming from within the borders of those 7 nations, religion notwithstanding.

Except Trump says that exceptions will be granted for non-Muslims…notably Christians. That’s twice he has violated the Constitution: 1) he’s violated the free exercise (of religion) clause by prohibiting Muslims; and 2) he’s violated the establishment clause by favoring Christians. And he still hasn’t protected America.

IT wrote:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine is a sexual discrimination case between an employee and employer. How is that at all relevant to this discussion? I didn't hear anyone mention Bill Clinton or Monica Lewinsky.

Though an employment discrimination case, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine is not a harassment case, but a termination case. It is a template for analyzing discrimination generally. That’s why I bring it up.

The Burdine case announced a three-part analysis, which through the various burdens, has repeatedly become useful in proving not just employment discrimination, but any sort of discrimination:

Chief Justice Berger wrote:In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), we set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment. [Footnote 5] First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." Id. at 411 U. S. 802. Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 411 U. S. 804.
450 U. S., at page 253

The direct evidence in the prima facie case is that Trump blatantly announced originally that he was going to establish a religious test. That glaring purpose doesn’t go away because he later said it was a nation-banning test. It’s an admission for all to hear, that stands no matter what he said on better advice.

The pretextuality case is manifold: 1) the EO excludes all Muslim countries except those that Trump has businesses in, suggesting it’s a Muslim ban ‘but-for’…; 2) it does nothing to assure safety from the kinds of attacks experienced on 9/11, because it doesn’t even ban visitors from countries that exported the terrorists of 9/11; 3) it provides for a religious exclusion, contradicting Trump’s assertion that it is not predicated on religion; and 4) there are virtually no non-Muslim countries included in the ban, despite their association with the purposes. Indeed, as I said, it appears to establish a preference (establishment) for Christians over Muslims.

Between the open admission in the prima facie case, and the various points in the pretextuality case, clearly this is an unconstitutional restriction on a religion, in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

That falicy is a misleading Liberal talking point.
Again, Obama (not Trump or his administration) labeled the 7 banned countries. Perhaps Obama has it in for Muslims, eh?

So, you want to take the position that it isn’t religious, even after Trump initially characterized in as religious? Perhaps the king isn’t naked after all.

IT wrote:The ban affects those coming from those 7 geographical areas. That includes Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, Smurf Worshippers, Scientoligists... all of them.
It's a ban on anyone coming from within the borders of those 7 nations, religion notwithstanding.

Except Trump says that exceptions will be granted for non-Muslims…notably Christians. That’s twice he has violated the Constitution: 1) he’s violated the free exercise (of religion) clause by prohibiting Muslims; and 2) he’s violated the establishment clause by favoring Christians. And he still hasn’t protected America.

IT wrote:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine is a sexual discrimination case between an employee and employer. How is that at all relevant to this discussion? I didn't hear anyone mention Bill Clinton or Monica Lewinsky.

Though an employment discrimination case, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine is not a harassment case, but a termination case. It is a template for analyzing discrimination generally. That’s why I bring it up.

The Burdine case announced a three-part analysis, which through the various burdens, has repeatedly become useful in proving not just employment discrimination, but any sort of discrimination:

Chief Justice Berger wrote:In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), we set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment. [Footnote 5] First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." Id. at 411 U. S. 802. Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 411 U. S. 804.
450 U. S., at page 253

The direct evidence in the prima facie case is that Trump blatantly announced originally that he was going to establish a religious test. That glaring purpose doesn’t go away because he later said it was a nation-banning test. It’s an admission for all to hear, that stands no matter what he said on better advice.

The pretextuality case is manifold: 1) the EO excludes all Muslim countries except those that Trump has businesses in, suggesting it’s a Muslim ban ‘but-for’…; 2) it does nothing to assure safety from the kinds of attacks experienced on 9/11, because it doesn’t even ban visitors from countries that exported the terrorists of 9/11; 3) it provides for a religious exclusion, contradicting Trump’s assertion that it is not predicated on religion; and 4) there are virtually no non-Muslim countries included in the ban, despite their association with the purposes. Indeed, as I said, it appears to establish a preference (establishment) for Christians over Muslims.

Between the open admission in the prima facie case, and the various points in the pretextuality case, clearly this is an unconstitutional restriction on a religion, in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Serious question, Quill: Given your knowledge of US law and constitution, how realistic do you think is the possibility of Trump being impeached over some issue, or even alienating both Congress and the Senate, not to mention individual state legislatures, to the point where it would become virtually impossible for him to govern by any means other than decree?

I don't lean either way where US politics are concerned; I had grave misgivings about both candidates. I have to say, however, it seems to me as an outsider that the wheels do appear to be coming off the wagon at the moment.

by Independent Thoughts Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:46 pm

OQ wrote:The direct evidence in the prima facie case is...

There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution. You should know this, as you claim to be a lawyer.

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:53 pm

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
OQ wrote:The direct evidence in the prima facie case is...
There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution. You should know this, as you claim to be a lawyer.

Wrong:

This definition is based on international law, specifically the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.S. is not a signatory to this Convention, but did sign on to its 1967 Protocol, which incorporates the Convention by reference. The Refugee Convention requires state parties to protect people living within their borders and prohibits them from sending people to other countries where they would be harmed based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. With the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. brought the refugee definition into our domestic law. The refugee definition is found at section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

A person who meets the refugee definition may be granted asylum in the United States if he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in section 208 of that Act and if the adjudicator decides that he or she should be granted asylum as a matter of discretion.

The bars to asylum include the one-year filing deadline, which states that a person who needs asylum should file the application within one year of the last arrival in the United States. Otherwise, the asylum-seeker must show that he or she qualifies for an exception to the filing deadline and that he or she filed within a reasonable time given that exception. Human Rights First advocates for the elimination of the filing deadline from our asylum law. For background reading on this advocacy, see our 2010 report.

The bars to asylum also include the so-called “material support bar.” Human Rights First advocates for a more reasonable version of this bar to asylum. For background reading, see our report.

Some people who need asylum will have their cases decided at the Asylum Office and others will have their cases decided at the Immigration Court. The standard for asylum is the same in both places, and Human Rights First works on cases at all levels of the system.

People apply for asylum with Form I-589. That application for asylum can also include a request for two related alternative forms of relief, which offer fewer benefits: withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA and protection under the UN Convention Against Torture.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asylum

by Independent Thoughts Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:58 pm

Thorin wrote:Wrong

No. I'm never wrong.

You stated that I was wrong but, instead of elaborating your claim, you pasted an excerpt about refugees. Your text does nothing to challenge my earlier statement. It's an entirely different topic.

Non-citizens residing outside of our borders have no basis for tort or judicial relief within the US legal system. Our courts have no jurisdiction over foreign nationalists in a foreign nation.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:04 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Thorin wrote:Wrong
No. I'm never wrong.

You stated that I was wrong but, instead of elaborating your claim, you pasted an excerpt about refugees. Your text does nothing to challenge my earlier statement. It's an entirely different topic.

Non-citizens residing outside of our borders have no basis for tort or judicial relief within the US legal system. Our courts have no jurisdiction over foreign nationalists in a foreign nation.

PMSL, sorry but you have been corrected on many things tonight by me and refugees have rights and protection within the US which has been made into law. You claimed they did not.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution.

You were wrong, they do have protection.

Night

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:09 am

...refugees have rights and protection within the US...

Yes, within the US. If they aren't in the US, they are not granted protection. Allow me to repeat the last sentence of my last post, for clarity:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Non-citizens residing outside of our borders have no basis for tort or judicial relief within the US legal system. Our courts have no jurisdiction over foreign nationalists in a foreign nation.

Please note that I make a distinction between refugees here in America, and abroad.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:13 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
...refugees have rights and protection within the US...

Yes, within the US. If they aren't in the US, they are not granted protection. Allow me to repeat the last sentence of my last post, for clarity:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Non-citizens residing outside of our borders have no basis for tort or judicial relief within the US legal system. Our courts have no jurisdiction over foreign nationalists in a foreign nation.

Please note that I make a distinction between refugees here in America, and abroad.

Bullshit alert

This is what you said.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution. You should know this, as you claim to be a lawyer.

You were wrong, they do have protection.

Try and learn to be humble when you are wrong

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:20 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, you want to take the position that it isn’t religious, even after Trump initially characterized in as religious? Perhaps the king isn’t naked after all.

Except Trump says that exceptions will be granted for non-Muslims…notably Christians. That’s twice he has violated the Constitution: 1) he’s violated the free exercise (of religion) clause by prohibiting Muslims; and 2) he’s violated the establishment clause by favoring Christians. And he still hasn’t protected America.

Though an employment discrimination case, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine is not a harassment case, but a termination case. It is a template for analyzing discrimination generally. That’s why I bring it up.

The Burdine case announced a three-part analysis, which through the various burdens, has repeatedly become useful in proving not just employment discrimination, but any sort of discrimination:

The direct evidence in the prima facie case is that Trump blatantly announced originally that he was going to establish a religious test. That glaring purpose doesn’t go away because he later said it was a nation-banning test. It’s an admission for all to hear, that stands no matter what he said on better advice.

The pretextuality case is manifold: 1) the EO excludes all Muslim countries except those that Trump has businesses in, suggesting it’s a Muslim ban ‘but-for’…; 2) it does nothing to assure safety from the kinds of attacks experienced on 9/11, because it doesn’t even ban visitors from countries that exported the terrorists of 9/11; 3) it provides for a religious exclusion, contradicting Trump’s assertion that it is not predicated on religion; and 4) there are virtually no non-Muslim countries included in the ban, despite their association with the purposes. Indeed, as I said, it appears to establish a preference (establishment) for Christians over Muslims.

Between the open admission in the prima facie case, and the various points in the pretextuality case, clearly this is an unconstitutional restriction on a religion, in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Serious question, Quill: Given your knowledge of US law and constitution, how realistic do you think is the possibility of Trump being impeached over some issue, or even alienating both Congress and the Senate, not to mention individual state legislatures, to the point where it would become virtually impossible for him to govern by any means other than decree?

Very, very real. This is the age of the inconceivable becoming normal and mainstream. Did you see the article I posted on the other thread in this section on impeachment? Trump has hit American politics like a nuclear weapon, and the destruction he has wreaked is massive. A little thing like impeachment--especially since Republicans have normalized it to the status of a parking ticket in the past 20-years --is nothing. Trump is into taking big, bold unconstitutional steps, and the response will be equally bold. Same game...just bigger investments.

Just in the past 2-3 days I heard someone on MSNBC say he was glad that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had been left out of the National Security Council...

(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/28/1626645/-Trump-removes-DNI-and-Chairman-of-Joint-Chiefs-from-National-Security-Council-And-adds-Bannon)

...because that will put him on America's side should a military coup be necessary. These are the kind of things being discussed openly on TV. Frankly, such talk might soon be driven underground. Today, criticism of the media; tomorrow, outlawing freedom of the press. Who knows?

Fred M. wrote:I don't lean either way where US politics are concerned; I had grave misgivings about both candidates. I have to say, however, it seems to me as an outsider that the wheels do appear to be coming off the wagon at the moment.

Hillary's sin was boredom. Trump's sins have ranged from tax evasion, bribery, fraud, conflicts, violations of the Constitution to treason. He's in too deep to put the country before his own interests.

by Original Quill Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:31 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
OQ wrote:The direct evidence in the prima facie case is...
There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution. You should know this, as you claim to be a lawyer.

I said Burdine it was a template, not a case.

The issue is not the refugees, but that between Trump and the Constitution. Violations of the religious freedoms clauses of the First Amendment are at issue.

I said in an earlier post that standing will be a problem, but enough cases have been filed that one of them is going to fly.

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:59 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
...refugees have rights and protection within the US...

Yes, within the US. If they aren't in the US, they are not granted protection. Allow me to repeat the last sentence of my last post, for clarity:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Non-citizens residing outside of our borders have no basis for tort or judicial relief within the US legal system. Our courts have no jurisdiction over foreign nationalists in a foreign nation.

Please note that I make a distinction between refugees here in America, and abroad.

yeah he never reads properly Rolling Eyes

and only he is allowed to further qualify his statement when someone takes it simplistically.

It would be nice if he took his own advice about losing, But I think he thinks he wins when people give up responding to his copy and pasted posts of minimal relevance . Suspect

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:20 am

Thorin wrote:
Bullshit alert

This is what you said.

I wouldn't advise calling "bullshit" on me. You run an extremely high risk of embarrassing yourself, when you do. Like now, for instance.

Take a closer look at my quote. You neglected the second sentence, which provided greater context.

There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution. You should know this, as you claim to be a lawyer.

Wanting = Desiring to, but not in the US.
Wanting = Hopes to one day be in the US, but not yet there.

They are not protected under our Constitution. Period.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:37 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Bullshit alert

This is what you said.

I wouldn't advise calling "bullshit" on me. You run an extremely high risk of embarrassing yourself, when you do. Like now, for instance.

Take a closer look at my quote. You neglected the second sentence, which provided greater context.

There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution. You should know this, as you claim to be a lawyer.

Wanting = Desiring to, but not in the US.
Wanting = Hopes to one day be in the US, but not yet there.

They are not protected under our Constitution. Period.

No its bullshit and in black and white.
Why what are you going to do, cry, because i expose you being wrong?
Refugees are protected in the US and I even gave you the facts on the laws
So they are protected when in the US when they come to the US, so refugees wanting to come to the US, have protection once they are they, you are trying to get out of your screw up
No matter how you look at this, you claimed they do not have protection, the fact is they do

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:42 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Yes, within the US. If they aren't in the US, they are not granted protection. Allow me to repeat the last sentence of my last post, for clarity:

Please note that I make a distinction between refugees here in America, and abroad.

yeah he never reads properly
and only he is allowed to further qualify his statement when someone takes it simplistically.

It would be nice if he took his own advice about losing, But I think he thinks he wins when people give up responding to his copy and pasted posts of minimal relevance .

I am still waiting for your clarification as to where you claimed I wanted to commit atrocities against Islam
And on just about every debate with Independent, he/she got owned last night.
You should have seen his link from the express that was comical
Its not about winning but facts, but nice to see you are shit stirring again

Grow up

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:46 am

An ancient law, an avant-garde tool for human rights.

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is a U.S. federal law first adopted in 1789 that gives the federal courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by non-U.S. citizens for torts committed in violation of international law. When the ATS was drafted in the 18th century, international law dealt primarily with regulating diplomatic relations between States and outlawing crimes such as piracy, however international law in the 21st century has expanded to include the protection of human rights. In the 60 years from the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 to the present decade, universal human rights have moved from being an aspirational concept to a legal reality. This remarkable evolution gave the ATS renewed significance in the late 20th century. Today, the Alien Tort Statute gives survivors of egregious human rights abuses, wherever committed, the right to sue the perpetrators in the United States.

Since 1980, the ATS has been used successfully in cases involving torture, state-sponsored sexual violence, extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and arbitrary detention. The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), passed in 1991 and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, gives similar rights to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to bring claims for torture and extrajudicial killing committed in foreign countries.

http://cja.org/what-we-do/litigation/legal-strategy/the-alien-tort-statute/

Oh dear

I shall await both Independent and Veya's apology

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:50 am

Four federal judges so far have issued injunctions blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration, and the reasons include one that might surprise some Trump supporters: The U.S. Constitution.

How does the Constitution apply to a non-citizen blocked from entering at JFK International Airport?

The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory. The American Civil Liberties Union and many legal scholars also believe Trump's order violates the First Amendment freedom of religion by singling out Muslim immigrants for discriminatory treatment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#4561eb15520b

lol, I shall await further apologies from both Veya and Independent

by nicko Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:06 am

You'll wait a long time mate.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:08 am

nicko wrote:You'll wait a long time mate.

Indeed Nicko, am still waiting for him to clarify his accusation on claiming I want to commit atrocities.

Morning by the way. Laughing

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:17 am

Thorin, might I suggest that you lay down and take a nap? You're making posts with links that I don't believe you're taking the time to read. If you're not reading your own referenced material, then why post them?
I only call your attentiveness to your own links into question because of their content -- why you would provide a link that would lend further credence to my argument instead of yours? Lol.

To recap, I said that refugees have no protections under our Constitution if they are not within our borders. We've covered this three times, now. Are you still on the same page?

Your link reinforces what I've said:

Thorin's very own link wrote:
Non-citizens don't share all the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution. They're subject to immigration law, under which the executive branch has broad authority to determine whether it wants them in the country or not. And until they've passed through immigration control, they aren't technically on U.S. soil, thanks to a "legal fiction" or counterintuitive legal understanding that carves out an exception to the normal rule, said Gordon.

"When you’re standing at JFK, you stand outside the borders until you are inspected and admitted,” she said.

Like I said... I'm never wrong.

Thorin wrote:
The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is a U.S. federal law...

Neither the ATS nor the TVPA have any relevance with refugees. Once again, you're tying in off-topic material.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:18 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Thorin wrote:Wrong
No. I'm never wrong.

Four federal judges so far have issued injunctions blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration, and the reasons include one that might surprise some Trump supporters: The U.S. Constitution.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#4561eb15520b

One moment

Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back Giphy

Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back Giphy

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:21 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Thorin, might I suggest that you lay down and take a nap? You're making posts with links that I don't believe you're taking the time to read. If you're not reading your own referenced material, then why post them?
I only call your attentiveness to your own links into question because of their content -- why you would provide a link that would lend further credence to my argument instead of yours? Lol.

To recap, I said that refugees have no protections under our Constitution if they are not within our borders. We've covered this three times, now. Are you still on the same page?

Your link reinforces what I've said:
Thorin's very own link wrote:
Non-citizens don't share all the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution. They're subject to immigration law, under which the executive branch has broad authority to determine whether it wants them in the country or not. And until they've passed through immigration control, they aren't technically on U.S. soil, thanks to a "legal fiction" or counterintuitive legal understanding that carves out an exception to the normal rule, said Gordon.

"When you’re standing at JFK, you stand outside the borders until you are inspected and admitted,” she said.

Like I said... I'm never wrong.

Thorin wrote:
The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is a U.S. federal law...

Neither the ATS nor the TVPA have any relevance with refugees. Once again, you're tying in off-topic material.

1) ad hominem and a deflection

2) Wrong again

The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory. The American Civil Liberties Union and many legal scholars also believe Trump's order violates the First Amendment freedom of religion by singling out Muslim immigrants for discriminatory treatment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#4561eb15520b

3) That shows that non citizens do have rights under US law

4) You are wrong more times than Veya

You said they do not have rights under the constitution, as seen they do have rights
That makes you wrong and incapable of admitting you are wrong

5) It does have relevance for refugees, if they are bring cases against people in the US

Try learning to understand your own law, it may help you stop making school boy errors

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:24 am

Wikipedia wrote:
Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it, and understand its meaning. Although this definition may seem simple; it is not necessarily simple to teach, learn or practice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Thorin, I think that last sentence, in the above quote, was written just for you.

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:27 am

Thorin wrote:
...U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

Refugees that are in another country wishing to come to America aren't in detention. They're in the country that sucks and they want to get out of. How is this applicable to this conversation?

You're in over your head. I don't think you understand what you're reading.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:27 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it, and understand its meaning. Although this definition may seem simple; it is not necessarily simple to teach, learn or practice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Thorin, I think that last sentence, in the above quote, was written just for you.

ad hominem and misdirection

Now I am going to embarrass you further

You claimed the following

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:There is no case. Refugees wanting to come to America have no basis or precedent for tort claims because they are not American citizens. Since they're not American citizens, they have no protection under our Constitution

To then make a complete arse of yourself and then contradict claiming

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Non-citizens don't share all the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

So they may not share the same rights, that is not what you claimed
You claimed they had "no" rights.
Which is also you admitting to them having some rights by saying they do not share all the rights, which is still some protection under the constitution.

As seen that claim by you is thus bollocks
That means you are wrong
So I think you should apply your above accusation to me, onto yourself

lol!

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:41 am

Someone visiting the US on a visa = A non-citizen in the US. Protected under the Constitution because they are on US soil.
Refugee living in the US = A non-citizen in the US. Protected under the Constitution because they are on US soil.
US citizen vising Mexico = A US citizen. Protected under the Constitution 24/7/365 because they're a US citizen.

Refugee wanting to come to America = NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. You're not on US soil.

I truly believe you're intentionally pretending daft because it's all you have left.

Thorin, you claim that you're not from the US. What rights or protections are YOU granted under our Constitution?
That's right: Not a one!

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:47 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:Someone visiting the US on a visa = A non-citizen in the US. Protected under the Constitution because they are on US soil.
Refugee living in the US = A non-citizen in the US. Protected under the Constitution because they are on US soil.
US citizen vising Mexico = A US citizen. Protected under the Constitution 24/7/365 because they're a US citizen.

Refugee wanting to come to America = NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. You're not on US soil.

I truly believe you're intentionally pretending daft because it's all you have left.

Thorin, you claim that you're not from the US. What rights or protections are YOU granted under our Constitution?
That's right: Not a one!

1) Wrong again

From the post you made

Non-citizens don't share all the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution. They're subject to immigration law, under which the executive branch has broad authority to determine whether it wants them in the country or not. And until they've passed through immigration control, they aren't technically on U.S. soil, thanks to a "legal fiction" or counterintuitive legal understanding that carves out an exception to the normal rule, said Gordon.

So you are wrong again

Again also refugees can make claims against US citizens under Tort

Now even abroad, US soldiers protect civilians under international law in the rules and engagement of combat. of which the US is a signatory of within its constitution

So on every thing you are wrong

You claimed they have no protection, they certainly do have protection

Learn some humility and learn to grow up when you are wrong

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:49 am

If I'm wrong, show me.

Pouting about it and repeating it over and over doesn't suffice as evidence.

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:53 am

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:If I'm wrong, show me.

Pouting about it and repeating it over and over doesn't suffice as evidence.

I suggest you go to specsavers

Now stop wasting my time sulking like a baby

by Independent Thoughts Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:04 am

by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:05 am

by Sponsored content

Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back

Re: Report: GOP Aides Drafted Trump's Ban Behind Congress's Back