jerseymom wrote:
Justice Department advised not to defend Trump?s travel ban
By Daniel Halper January 30, 2017 | 6:59pm |

In an extraordinary move, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend President Trump?s executive order blocking immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries.

?I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution?s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,? Yates said in an email to lawyers of the Civil Division on Monday.

?At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,? she added.

More

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

It's true that there were economic reasons for accepting immigrants in the past. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is areas of responsibility. We not only have military footprints in many of these countries, we are actually engaged in the conflicts that arose from many of these displacements. The Jewish analogy fits in because we got involved in World War II and we became very much involved in the fate of the Jewish people. Whether you agree in our involvement in these affairs or not, we do bear a responsibility since we are involved.

No, we don't bear this kind of responsibility, and will fulfill any humanitarian obligations through the safe zones.

The Jewish analogy is horrible for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that these Muslims are killing each other. If the analogy applies at all, it is to a religious minority, which are the Syrian Christians.

You know, the same ones that Obama seemed to go out of his way to reject. Christians are 10% of Syria's population yet made up less than 1% of Syrian refugees admitted last year.

That's why Trump wil be prioritizing them, once the refugee ban is lifted. And even then I would argue we don't have the responsibility to take them. But if you're going to use the Jewish analogy, that's where it goes.

That's your opinion, that you think safe zones are enough. Apparently it wasn't, ever since we invaded Iraq. I wonder why?

There is no real evidence that Obama rejected Christian refugees but we do have Trump saying he would start a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign. Too bad his ban also affected Christian refugees.

No, it is not just my opinion. In fact, we had an election on this very issue. As I'm sure you will acknowledge, the different policy stances were communicated loud and clear. Everyone knew the platforms of each candidate. And Trump won.

What people like these protesters are doing is essentially being a sore loser. I include you in this group because you are trying to skirt the fact that Trump is merely doing exactly what was promised. Something I, and 60 million other Americans, strongly believe is in our own best interest for our long term future. And you seem to be sneakily claiming that my stance is a mere "opinion," making yours fact. When it just simply isn't the case.

At best, you have a contrary opinion that was put on the ballot and rejected.

The only legitimate objection one could have to Trump's orders is the fact that some green card holders initially seemed to be banned as well. But that was quickly cleared up as a mistake in administering the order, and green card holders can travel back and forth, albeit with extra questioning. The refugee issue is settled, and as I said, we don't have a responsibility to bring them here.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

It's true that there were economic reasons for accepting immigrants in the past. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is areas of responsibility. We not only have military footprints in many of these countries, we are actually engaged in the conflicts that arose from many of these displacements. The Jewish analogy fits in because we got involved in World War II and we became very much involved in the fate of the Jewish people. Whether you agree in our involvement in these affairs or not, we do bear a responsibility since we are involved.

No, we don't bear this kind of responsibility, and will fulfill any humanitarian obligations through the safe zones.

The Jewish analogy is horrible for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that these Muslims are killing each other. If the analogy applies at all, it is to a religious minority, which are the Syrian Christians.

You know, the same ones that Obama seemed to go out of his way to reject. Christians are 10% of Syria's population yet made up less than 1% of Syrian refugees admitted last year.

That's why Trump wil be prioritizing them, once the refugee ban is lifted. And even then I would argue we don't have the responsibility to take them. But if you're going to use the Jewish analogy, that's where it goes.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

On_The_3rd wrote:

I never said people don't have the freedom to express their opinion back ? they absolutely do ? but keep in mind that fueling a fire does nothing to extinguish it.

Another recent Trump building that has used metal from China is Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, which opened in 2009. For that project, Trump obtained loans from Deutsche Bank and three hedge funds that in turn used financing from George Soros, the business magnate who is the subject of many conservative conspiracy theories and is portrayed as a threat to the Republican Party.

TheBigGuy wrote:
No, the funny part is your stupid comments like this democrat/republican viewpoint and then trying to attribute it to Trump voters.

If anything is true, it is HRC escaping justice because of her last name and her democrat affiliation.

The HRC campaign is desperate for a large voter mandate... I think the polling numbers in key states do not look good for her and that is why we are in the middle of this media frenzy with half baked law suits that will all disappear after the election if Clinton wins.


Quote:

drifterx wrote:
What's funny is that some Trump supporters shrug off his despicable taped comments because apparently, in their view, he said them while he was a Democrat. Now that he's a 'Republican', they will never stop supporting him.

If Trump is indeed working for Clinton, Hillary is not paying him nearly enough. He's about to drown a shit-ton of lemmings.

Yvonne wrote:

I am stating what happen and what the report that was done by an outside firm on the sexual abuse of minors. The majority, close to 90% (forget the exact figure) were male victims. In order to stop the sexual abuse of minors then the Catholic Church must stop allowing gay men in the church. According to many on this blog, people are born with their sexual orientation so it was gay men not straight men attacking the youth. People here want to attack the Church but they also want to dismiss who attacked the victims.