"Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco forcefully argued Saturday night that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States"

What have we, a dictatorship. Radicals, isn't that against your beliefs, or is it just okay when the president is a repub?

8 U.S. Code SS 1182 - Inadmissible aliens | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It's very clear...the president CAN limit immigration:

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

But of course...someone will twist the words around...like they do with the anchor babies to make them "legal". Illegal's are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US when they drop their anchor baby. They are trespassing...sneaking around undetected. And WHEN under the jurisdiction...are removed...as trespassers.

Good job on the research DimWitDave!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

8 U.S. Code SS 1182 - Inadmissible aliens | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It's very clear...the president CAN limit immigration:

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

But of course...someone will twist the words around...like they do with the anchor babies to make them "legal". Illegal's are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US when they drop their anchor baby. They are trespassing...sneaking around undetected. And WHEN under the jurisdiction...are removed...as trespassers.

Your research is good, and I agree "sort of" with the ban.

First, the lawyer for the Govt was unable to prove the beginning of the clause you cite, i.e. detrimental to our country. NONE of the countries banned have EVER been involved in one single, even investigation of terror. Citing the previous administration mentiong said same countries fell on deaf ears because those mentions were a warning about dangers traveling TO, not about folks coming FROM.

Again, why this administration rushed headlong with no thought escapes me. They do all this with "mouths blazing" and then end up alienating the world with lying trying to recap.

Why they could not immediately begin a review of vetting, while working on a ban that was not so obviously aimed at Muslims, for political purposes. They would certainly have more on their side.

When this judge asked the US attorney about cause, she actually responded by saying she was not aware she needed to show a reason.

Trump will eventually win this somehow, but the inept foolishness thus far simply makes America look foolish.

Then compound it by taking a strong defense of Putin killing on the pre Super Bowl nterview.

Originally Posted by Guest

8 U.S. Code SS 1182 - Inadmissible aliens | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It's very clear...the president CAN limit immigration:

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

But of course...someone will twist the words around...like they do with the anchor babies to make them "legal". Illegal's are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US when they drop their anchor baby. They are trespassing...sneaking around undetected. And WHEN under the jurisdiction...are removed...as trespassers.

Limit, not ban. They may also find an entry that will override the above.

Originally Posted by Guest

8 U.S. Code SS 1182 - Inadmissible aliens | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

It's very clear...the president CAN limit immigration:

"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

But of course...someone will twist the words around...like they do with the anchor babies to make them "legal". Illegal's are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US when they drop their anchor baby. They are trespassing...sneaking around undetected. And WHEN under the jurisdiction...are removed...as trespassers.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your research is good, and I agree "sort of" with the ban.

First, the lawyer for the Govt was unable to prove the beginning of the clause you cite, i.e. detrimental to our country. NONE of the countries banned have EVER been involved in one single, even investigation of terror. Citing the previous administration mentiong said same countries fell on deaf ears because those mentions were a warning about dangers traveling TO, not about folks coming FROM.

Again, why this administration rushed headlong with no thought escapes me. They do all this with "mouths blazing" and then end up alienating the world with lying trying to recap.

Why they could not immediately begin a review of vetting, while working on a ban that was not so obviously aimed at Muslims, for political purposes. They would certainly have more on their side.

When this judge asked the US attorney about cause, she actually responded by saying she was not aware she needed to show a reason.

Trump will eventually win this somehow, but the inept foolishness thus far simply makes America look foolish.

Then compound it by taking a strong defense of Putin killing on the pre Super Bowl nterview.

Detrimental to the INTERESTS of the country.

Can mean a LOT.

Originally Posted by Guest

Detrimental to the INTERESTS of the country.

Can mean a LOT.

Absolutely can for sure.

As I said, this administration just runs wild and amok with their mouths with no thought of the outcome.

This was a very badly put together case they made and will need to make a few adjustment in oral arguements.

Not the judges fault......and Trump can call him all the names he wants....HE screwed it up. The man is doing his job as was the Attorney General......he is not a ruler and maybe Putin led him astray.

Originally Posted by Guest

Absolutely can for sure.

As I said, this administration just runs wild and amok with their mouths with no thought of the outcome.

This was a very badly put together case they made and will need to make a few adjustment in oral arguements.

Not the judges fault......and Trump can call him all the names he wants....HE screwed it up. The man is doing his job as was the Attorney General......he is not a ruler and maybe Putin led him astray.

Europe is supposedly being overrun with "refugees". They are supposedly creating problems over there.

Is it not reasonable to stop them from coming here too?

Besides...we have ENOUGH people coming here every year...11 million illegal Hispanics at any given time...dropping anchor babies. We're already overrun with brown people, we don't need to hasten our destruction by bringing in even more.

Originally Posted by Guest

Europe is supposedly being overrun with "refugees". They are supposedly creating problems over there.

Is it not reasonable to stop them from coming here too?

Besides...we have ENOUGH people coming here every year...11 million illegal Hispanics at any given time...dropping anchor babies. We're already overrun with brown people, we don't need to hasten our destruction by bringing in even more.

Using your adjective..."supposedly" ISIS is on the run, and losing ground and strength...."supposedly" we were going to ban countries that were supplying terrorists or their activity in the USA, and we did NOT....and "supposedly" the USA was built by and on the back of immigrants.

Why is there so much rhetoric against enforcing the laws?

If a visa has expired, they need to renew it or get out of the country. Because it is not enforced anything goes.

If a person is a person of interest because of the country they come from, then why should there not be some action taken?

And if the system of passing people into the country is not working, just exactly what is wrong with closing the door TEMPORARILY and fix the process?

Why is it OK to have wide open boarders and not challenge those who should not be coming in or who do not have the correct documentation?

How many of you think you could get into Mexico without the proper documentation? Germany? France? Japan?

Why is the number of people who have been "inconvenienced" so low yet the media and the protestors would have us all believe that everybody in the system is being affected.

Just how stupid can some Americans be that they would continue to support and promote illegal immigration?

Originally Posted by Guest

Using your adjective..."supposedly" ISIS is on the run, and losing ground and strength...."supposedly" we were going to ban countries that were supplying terrorists or their activity in the USA, and we did NOT....and "supposedly" the USA was built by and on the back of immigrants.

White immigrants BUILT America.

The slaves were agricultural workers, benefiting large plantation owners who sold cotton to Europe.

They didn't...as today...do much skilled labor. It was carrying bricks, toting loads...nothing that involved thinking...because they're not good at that.

I say "supposedly" because I know the media...the news...is fake. Full of lies and deception.

I was there...I was part of the planning...and the "news" reports were propaganda. WHY do you think I'm so negative about our "leaders" and "his-story" and the media/news? Because I KNOW how false it is.

It's a bunch of rich and powerful guys who want to be MORE rich and powerful...that is our "government", our "leaders" in a nut shell. Looting the treasury and passing us the bill. Keeping us afraid and only they can save us.

We're ALL being conned...constantly.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why is there so much rhetoric against enforcing the laws?

If a visa has expired, they need to renew it or get out of the country. Because it is not enforced anything goes.

If a person is a person of interest because of the country they come from, then why should there not be some action taken?

And if the system of passing people into the country is not working, just exactly what is wrong with closing the door TEMPORARILY and fix the process?

Why is it OK to have wide open boarders and not challenge those who should not be coming in or who do not have the correct documentation?

How many of you think you could get into Mexico without the proper documentation? Germany? France? Japan?

Why is the number of people who have been "inconvenienced" so low yet the media and the protestors would have us all believe that everybody in the system is being affected.

Just how stupid can some Americans be that they would continue to support and promote illegal immigration?

How stupid? Stupid enough to lose their country in 30 years...pretty darn stupid.

Why do liberals not believe in law and order? Is that not a reasonable question? Why is it that they believe more in what someone displays in their front yard or paying for some females birth control than they do about felonies being committed?

Originally Posted by Guest

Why do liberals not believe in law and order? Is that not a reasonable question? Why is it that they believe more in what someone displays in their front yard or paying for some females birth control than they do about felonies being committed?

Because liberals are...

"women, effeminate men, and low-IQ chimps."

I stole that from someone else...it fits well.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why do liberals not believe in law and order? Is that not a reasonable question? Why is it that they believe more in what someone displays in their front yard or paying for some females birth control than they do about felonies being committed?

Who was the first president to have amnesty for mexicans? It was your "greatest president" ronald reagan . He said it would solve the problem forever. He started the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by Guest

Because liberals are...

"women, effeminate men, and low-IQ chimps."

I stole that from someone else...it fits well.

Of course you stole it, you don't have the mental capacity to think on your own.