With the SCOTUS supporting the Trump travel ban, does that mean that it can now be enforced?

Big disappointment. A scary precedent.

In theory, Trump could now sign a EO banning the entire world. We’ll see what Trump does with this new toy…

Should it be stopped? Only if ethics, justice, and the (used to be) American way are important. We are no longer a land of the free, and it is a home of cowards (Trump suporters,) who desperately cling to false notions that the US should be a white/Christian country. And are constantly taking further steps in that futile, and immoral direction…

Interesting. What do you that America should be as a country?

A diverse, healthy, educated, peaceful population.

If you’ve ever been to a medical university, you can really get a sense of the potential of such a grouping. Not to be corny, but it could be like Gene Rodenbury’s Star Trek future, not Trump’s 1950’s/pre-civil rights/dystopian future.

If the country took advantage of the power of diversity, and coexistence, it would be the greatest country on Earth.

@MrGrimm888 Who said it had to be white and christian? I’ve never heard anyone here proclaim that should be the case. Even the evil Trump supporters.
In fact, statistics show that the US population will primarily be brown toned skin by 2050, so I’m not even sure it’s possible at this point.

The travel ban has been in force since last December pending the final decision but it seems Trump now has the power to halt immigration into the US from any country he chooses. Individuals from banned countries can in theory get a waiver on a case by case basis but hardly any of them do. It was as close a decision as is possible but it has given Trump the “complete and total shutdown” he wanted. Not a good day.

@KNOWITALL .
The Trump agenda is at war with non-white/non-Christians. The culmination of his policies show this clearly. I have little doubt that someone with your intelligence cannot easily see that.

Yes. That population report is a gleaming example of why Trump’s agenda, is what it is. And why many of his supporters stick with him. The thought of being a minority, and/or just being surrounded by so many non-whites is scary to many Trumpers. They just won’t admit it. They hide their racism by saying things like “I just care about the borders,” or “those countries support terrorism.”

Yes. It’s not realistic to think America could be all white. That’s why I called it “futile.”

Again. Fear is a powerful motivational tool… One of Trump’s most effective tools.

I find it hard to believe that an administration can ban billions of brown people from even visiting here, try to deport millions of brown people, and go to great lengths to stop millions more from Mexico (while ignoring the Canadian border)and NOT be viewed as being motivated by race. Astonishing. Just astonishing…

@MrGrimm888 I believe you are mistaken. Some of us aren’t scared of brown people, but we are interested in securing the borders. One doesn’t preclude the other.

I wish some of you didn’t make me feel as if I have to defend the entire white race, or every christian sect in America. It’s exhausting.

Is there really a fear that President Trump would try halting all immigration from the rest of the world? I personally don’t see it even being considered. I think the travel ban, as it was written, was actually a good thing. It was skewed to be a “Muslim ban”, but it specified countries and gave reasons that were supported by facts. AND it didn’t ban all travel from those countries, just banned unvetted people from those countries coming to this one. I don’t see that as even an effort to set the stage for banning all immigration.

@seawulf575 But the liberals and Mr. Grimm don’t believe it’s actually about security, they believe it’s prejudice.

^Thanks for not lumping me in with the liberals.

You don’t have to defend whites, or Christians. Just the ones who support Trump.

If security is really a concern, not prejudices, why isn’t there a plan for a wall on the Canadian border? In fact. It’s one of the least guarded borders in the entire world.
It’s quite foolish to suggest that only the border with the brown people is a security issue, without seeming racist.
It’s quite foolish to suggest that only countries that are majority brown skinned and muslim, are the only threats to security without seeming racist, and anti-islam.

For those who don’t think race has anything to do with it, supporting Trump, is racist, and anti-islam. And many other abhorrent things…

@seawulf575. I didn’t mean to infer that Trump would ban the world. But he could. That simple fact doesn’t concern you? Conservatives are supposed to want less power of a government over it’s population. Now the POTUS could ban any country he personally dislikes, with no checks or balances.

Would you be willing to bet that Trump won’t ban another country, on a whim? We could wake up tomorrow morning, and Mexico could be banned. The ‘reasons”/excuses given for banning the other countries could be applied to almost any additional country, including our own…

@seawulf575 It wasn’t skewed to be a Muslim ban. Trump himself said at the outset he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. That and other comments about Muslims would give anyone the impression of religious bias.

”The court “has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States,” Trump said in a statement released by the White House. ”In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country.””

”Trump may add more countries to his ban, but the current roster includes Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Four countries are noticeably missing from that list: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. They’re located in the same region as the countries subject to the ban and they’re home to large Muslim populations. They also have something else in common: They all do business with Trump.”

”If the president was as dedicated to national security as he suggests, it would be logical for his list of banned countries to look a little different. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia. Two of them were from the U.A.E., and one was from Egypt. More recent attacks in the U.S. haven’t involved immigrants from any of the countries on Trump’s list.”

From Bloomberg

Could it be about money???

@MrGrimm888 haha, you’re welcome. You’re civil with me most of the time, so ya.

But see, all the people who support SOME of Trumps policies are not prejudice, you can’t lump all of us in together either. Security does not mean prejudice.

So if you could pick between 50 undocumented asylum seekers and 100 vetted asylum seekers, which do you think is the best for our people’s security? Which would you prefer to live beside?

And let’s not forget, the travel ban is the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Immigration from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen was already adequately controlled and was not creating any security problems.

@KNOWITALL .
Sorry. But to me, and a growing number of others, supporting Trump’s agenda is no longer excusable. There was a time, early in his presidency, when I assumed all but the real scum would realize what a horrible mistake they made supporting Trump. After all they’ve witnessed to this point, I have to believe that they really are bogots, and deplorable people to still be on his side.
The administration is very harmful to billions of people. If you are supporting him, you are an accessory to his hurting people.

I’m not certain I understand your 50/100 question. If you clarify, I will offer a response.

@MrGrimm888 No, it doesn’t bother me that he “could” ban the rest of the world. It makes no sense politically, fiscally, or any other way. As for why there isn’t a wall being suggested along the Canadian border, it is fairly simple….there isn’t a huge illegal immigration issue coming from the north. We have had more illegals cross the southern border than the entire population of Canada. If we start having problems with terrorists and drug dealers crossing the Canadian border with frightening regularity and impact, you may hear about a northern wall.
To claim the Travel ban is anti-Islamic is foolish. There are about 50 nations where >50% of the population is Islamic. There aren’t 50 nations on the travel ban. And N Korea and Venezuela aren’t primarily Islamic nations, but are on the travel ban. What all the nations on the travel ban have in common is that many of those nations have large chunks of population and/or leaders that have sworn to destroy the USA. It’s as simple as that. They proposed violence against us and the previous administration was allowing large numbers of people from these countries into ours with little to no vetting. That is a patently foolish thing, if you care about the safety of the US citizenry.

@flutherother respectfully, it was skewed to be a Muslim ban. That was one of the big reasons that people opposing the ban, that took it to court, were using to stop it.

@seawulf575 . I could have written that for you…

@MrGrimm888 Okay, so if I agree with one thing that Trump says I’m a scuzzball bigot and accessory. Got it. TBH, neither side represents my interests, morals or convictions 100% and both are pretty deplorable right now.

Again, I will say, I think the Democratic party is making another huge mistake leading up to the next election with these tactics. If you think it hurt last election, imagine losing another four years just because you hated Trump so much. Imagine all the people that could be hurt and policies that could be made. That’s a gamble I personally wouldn’t make, but it’ll be interesting to watch how it plays out.

No. I could care less what Trump “says.” His actions are where the problem is. Of course, many people don’t support all of any candidate’s policies. But you don’t have to provide support for a candidate that hurts people you claim to care about.

@seawulf575 with equal respect, they used Trump’s own words to do so.

IT’s okay ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Everybody get out your universal identification card for the tRump Super supporters (read SS) no card three day in the lock-up, firing squad if you have a USA applied tattoo on your left fore arm as an alien. J.K.

But not really kidding, it is getting scary. He’ll put companies out of business if they cross his way of business, like Harley-Davidson!

The great shortcoming with our President is that he is both ignorant and impulsive. If that weren’t troublesome enough, there’s the added bonus of his loud mouth and the ill considered prouncements tumbling from it nonstop. The Muslim ban is just one example from the pile of sweeping announcements followed by bungled implementation due to piss poor planning if any, with the courts racing to keep pace with the galloping illegalities. I mean seriously, what kind of functional government can result from this single stooge (Trump would never tolerate 2 others) movie?

Absolutely.

@seawulf575 . May I ask why you support it? Like, versus many other countries, for the same claimed reasons?

Yes. It means more than that. It affirms the president’s power regarding immigration.

@MrGrimm888 You may ask! That’s what this is about. I support it because I think it is/was a step in the right direction. I disagree with the idea that we should take everyone at any time in any way, just because they want to come to our nation. I think we need to be more selective in who we accept, but even more important…we need to know who they are and what their history is. Most, if not all, of the “refugees” that were coming to us from the ME were let in and thrown into our societies, yet we had no idea who they were. They might have been very nice people, they might have been criminals, they might have been agents of the governments that have sworn to harm us. We don’t know. That seems a really foolish thing to do. I believe that if we have good immigration laws that we actually follow we will see much more benefit from immigration.

So. Why just the countries selecyed? Why not say Saudi Arabia?

For that you would have to ask the POTUS. If I were speculating, I would say it is because Saudi Arabia hasn’t made it a daily habit of swearing to kill us all. They haven’t threatened us with war. The nations that are on the list have either made it known they intend to destroy us, or have openly, knowingly, and with mallice harbored terrorists that have sworn to hurt us. If the recent summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un bears fruit and relations between our two nations, he may well take them off the list. If Saudi Arabia begins a policy of threatening us and openly harboring terrorists that are sworn to hurt us, he may add them to it.

@seawulf575 That is the best answer! And the truth!

@seawulf575 . I disagree with your assessment. But I respect it, and will let this go to bed…

I seem to remember that most of the participants and all of the financing for the 9/11 raids was the work of Wahabists from Saudi Arabia. Ben Laden was a Saudi. But we needed the oil, and they buy up a lot of our weaponry so no travel restrictions on Saudis no matter what they blow up.

^Yeah. I’m not going to get the answers I suspect, so I’m leaving it be…

@seawulf575 Can a distinction be made between foreign regimes and the people trying to escape from those regimes? The refugees don’t threaten anyone with war, on the contrary they are often fleeing from war and are desperate to begin stable lives with a future for their families.

@flutherother I think the problem is that a distinction cannot always be made between foreign regimes and the people trying to escape those regimes, when it comes to unvetted refugees. I truly believe that there a quite a few people looking for help and that are trying to get out of a dangerous situation that threatens them and their families. However it is also likely, especially since they admitted it, that our enemies are slipping agents in with the refugees. The only way to stop the threat to our citizens is to either (a) stop taking all people until they can be vetted or (b) inter them in camps until they can be vetted. Apparently, with what is going on at the southern border, (b) is not acceptable. I’m not a heartless bastard really, but how would you feel if one of these “refugees” we let in, that was actually an agent, started blowing up bombs and killing men, women and children? Is it fair to those families?

@Seawulf Exactly. Why is that so difficult to understand?

And yet that same logic doesn’t dictate the need for a Canadian wall….. Ok….

@MrGrimm888 Immigrants are LEAVING America, not trying to get in. Canada doesn’t even enforce their immigration laws from everything I’ve read. Good luck Canada!

Here’s one article for you.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/refugees-enter-canada-immigration-laws-not-enforced/
Basically, Canada is just fundamentally more lawless than the United States when it comes to immigration.

Another:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-border-officials-prepare-for-another-spike-in-illegal-border/

Another:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2018/01/11/taking-a-note-from-trump-why-the-canadian-government-should-tighten-up-its-refugee-policy/#5750e2c67dc5
Meanwhile an inordinate strain on the Canadian government is caused by their sheer numbers. According to the CIC website, from January to November 2017 alone, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada processed 13,280 asylum claims in Quebec and 10,775 in Ontario, although there were only 970 in Alberta and 815 in British Columbia. Nonetheless, since there are so many asylum claims overall, the processing times are long. While Prime Minister Trudeau is confident that Canada will manage the influx of these refugees, conservative MP Michelle Rempel, for one, pointed out that the “Immigration and Refugee Board is already reporting 11-year wait times (yes, YEARS) for refugee hearings and is experiencing an alarming shortage of immigration judges.” On average, $15,000 to $20,000 is spent by different levels of government on each asylum claimant, according to Michael MacDonald, director general of the operations sector of the citizenship and immigration department. So Canadian taxpayers could end up paying heavily over many years because of delayed hearings for the new arrivals.

Nope… There’s no source that can tell me that terrorists, human/drug trafficers, rapists, and murderers can’t just walk in from Canada. Until I hear concerns about that, I will stand firm on my position that race is a factor.

If Canada issues their immigrants the ability to work legally, they’ll be getting taxes, until the trials. There are many simple ways to handle this…

@MrGrimm888 I’ve already commented that it is economics. More people pour across our southern border than the northern. We have gotten more illegals than the population of Canada. It doesn’t make economic sense to build a wall along the Northern border unless we suddenly start having human traffickers and drug dealers pouring across that border. You can try ignoring that comment, but please, do yourself a favor and stop being silly.

Or bombers.

@rebbel said the magic word. @KNOWITALL Canada could could comfortably accommodate its refugees, build a city to house them and have change to spare for what we spend on a single B2 bomb wing.

@seawulf575 . If walls weren’t super old, irrelevant technology, I’d much easier support them. The planned wall is just expensive crap…

Trump would have us believe that the worst people in the world are flooding across the borders. Saying that a wall will stop them, is beyond foolish. Do you really think there were no walls, between here and El Salvador? Come on…..

@MrGrimm888 In this, you and I are in agreement. The wall they are looking at would help keep out some of the illegals coming across the border, but not all. I would much rather have them did a ditch 20’ deep and 20’ wide, piling the dirt up on the American side and lining it with razor wire. Install motion sensors along the way. This would help minimize the number of tunnels under the wall, would present a much more difficult challenge to get across, and could be done for a fraction of the cost and time of the wall. If you want more, put up cameras that would be able to see at least 90% of the way.

I think more drones, and border patrol would be far more effective than any wall. Cameras are great too.

I’m not opposed to border control. Just not a gillion dollar wall…

Poor Trump has no depth of thought, and is so prone to act without planning that he stumbles from one disaster to the next. He announces his ill advised schemes without any idea of their actual feasibility and the result is that the majority of them dangle on the vine to wither. This Muslim ban is an example of just such a measure. Trump rolled this one out when he came into office, and for a year and a half the courts handed him his lunch as iteration after sloppy version was knocked down repeatedly for blatantly illegal insufficiencies. On this particular issue, it appears that the big man’s fingers have been sufficiently scorched to give him pause on implementation of his program lest scatterbrained application land his beleaguered behind back in the courtrooms once more to explain his incompetence. And so it goes with the wall, the ban on gays in the military, the scheme to defund planned parenthood, etc.