patrick.net

You cannot infringe on others legal freedoms just because you are scared.

If the courts believed the government had credible evidence that these countries were newly an immediate threat, that the government had proof of new plots, new dangers, then they would have upheld the order. The government just had to have a strong pretense for it, actually. Instead, they had Trump tweets and language to the counter.

The executive provided nothing further, and argued the court itself didn't have a right to rule or see anything. (Seems this is your argument now.)

I don't blame gun makers for gun violence. Why now am I going to blame a government check on executive overreach for terrorisim.

You guys have gone fear driven bat shit crazy.

---

What's the magnitude of the threat?

They ARE COMING TO KILL US!

Are our current immigration checks enough?

WE WILL BECOME EUROPE! THEY ARE GONNA BOMB US!

Wait? Aren't we still taking small amounts under the toughest immigration vetting in the world?

MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO KILL US! THEY HATE US! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

So, a whole ocean separating us, careful controls on who gets in, and to date no attacks? Seems like we have this well in hand, right?

EXTREME VETTING! BAN THE OUTSIDERS! IF YOU EVEN LOOK AT A MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY ON A MAP YOU NEED TO BE ON A WATCH LIST!

----

That's kind of what the dialogue sounds like. Totally hyperbolic.

bob2356 says

ou are having a lot of trouble with the concept of TEMPORARY, as in temporary restraining order aren't you?

You have a lot of concept with reality don't you. When you put a temp restraining order-how many terrorists, jihdis and unwanted slip in while the robed imams go about their luxury lives waiting to debate and decide??? If this fight drags on-how many more slip in??

lostand confused says

Again -I quote to you what Kamal Harris herself said-this is she saying it.

lostand confused says

Refugees, immigrants, students, and tourists all deserve to be able to access their lawyer in legal proceedings that could change the course of their lives, whether they enter the country at an airport or come across the border,” said Harris upon announcing the bill.

I'm still missing where the word provide is in there. Want to try again? The words access and provide aren't synonyms. It's really not that hard to understand the different concepts. Try looking them up in Merriam-Webster or Macmilllion dictionary to clear this up in your mind.

Rew says

You guys have gone fear driven bat shit crazy.

Nah that is your kind due to the insane PC culture. The question is not about citizens-but does the uS have the right to limit non US citizens from coming in for any reason. Do we or not as a nation have the right to limit any non citizen.

If you are a US citizen-I am all in for due process and giving that person every avenue possible. Non citizens-especially those who haven't even come in-NAH-that is the issue-your kind might try and twist it any which way-but not working anymore.

Nothing to do with fear-he should not have even put security concerns-the central question is as a nation do we have the right to limit non citizens from entering our nation. These rulings test the very thesis of our nation, our very country and the idea of the borders-which lefties have been pushing for a while to move into a borderless world.

lostand confused says

. When you put a temp restraining order-how many terrorists, jihdis and unwanted slip in while the robed imams go about their luxury lives waiting to debate and decide??? If this fight drags on-how many more slip in??

I don't know. Since you are so knowledgeable on the subject please feel free to document how many have slipped in between 9/11 and trump issuing his order and how many will slip in before the supreme court decides to let the TRO stand or not? I'd be fascinated to find that information out.

bob2356 says

'm still missing where the word provide is in there. Want to try again? The words access and provide aren't synonyms

Are you brain dead -seriously??? In your own link the very first paragraph, it says this" he Access to Counsel Act, to make certain that those held or detained while attempting to enter the United States are guaranteed access to legal counsel."

What exactly does guranteed mean?? It means anybody who enters the uS -airports, border down south and detained by ICE is GUARANTEED access to a lawyer. Now if that is law and they don't have money-what do you think will happen-we have to provide one-to satisfy the guarantee. So any illegal, any terrorist with a bomb will be guaranteed access to a lawyer- paid for by yours truly-taxpayers.

bob2356 says

I don't know. Since you are so knowledgeable on the subject please feel free to document how many have slipped in between 9/11 and trump issuing his order and how many will slip in before the supreme court decides to let the TRO stand or not? I'd be fascinated to find that information ou

Why should I care. These are not citizens and as a country there is no need to let them in-no reason, no stats. This is a battle line between the borderless globalist crowd and the borders and nations are real crowd.

Now if Trump put a rule saying citizens-I would be up in arms-visitors do not have a right to come in and we as a country should ahve the right to bar people coming-not robed imams deciding what is acceptable or not for 300 million plus people.

BayArea says

Are the terrorists more or less motivated to commit an act of terror on American soil amid this controversy here in the USA?

So you believe terrorists, who come from countries where we have been waging war for the past 15+ years, give a shit about our travel policies? I think they're a little more concerned with the daily dronings.

lostand confused says

Are you brain dead -seriously??? In your own link the very first paragraph, it says this" he Access to Counsel Act, to make certain that those held or detained while attempting to enter the United States are guaranteed access to legal counsel."

What exactly does guranteed mean?? It means anybody who enters the uS -airports, border down south and detained by ICE is GUARANTEED access to a lawyer. Now if that is law and they don't have money-what do you think will happen-we have to provide one-to satisfy the guarantee. So any illegal, any terrorist with a bomb will be guaranteed access to a lawyer- paid for by yours truly-taxpayers.

Guaranteed means just what it says. They are guaranteed the right to get in touch with a lawyer if they ask for it. They can't be held for hours or be coerced into signing anything without being able to talk to a lawyer. It's not all that hard to understand. Give it a try.

You want to provide the statute that spells this out how we have to provide one? Hint there isn't any any such law. I realize that you are really fuzzy on this laws of the land stuff, but there actually has to be a law for something to be enforceable. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true.

Still hearing those crickets. Chirp, chirp, chirp.

The problem with the order was it DID apply to citizens. Many people with dual citizenship got stopped.

The administration said ... Well, it doesn't apply to citizens, trust me.

The judiciary said ... That's cute, but as written here it makes no stipulations. Ruling on the order itself it looks illegal to me.

The SCOTUS has no power over the most important FREEDOM.
THE RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY WHERE ONE CHOOSES.

One MUSLIM that is banned makes the E.O. a MUSLIM BAN!
It's not a MUSLIM BAN? Then why does it ban a MUSLIM.
But they are TERRORIST? Why do Republicans allow them to live?

Wait! I got it! Muslims are religious followers of ISLAM,IT"S A RELIGIOUS BAN!

Rew says

So, a whole ocean separating us, careful controls on who gets in, and to date no attacks?

@Rew, serious question, why do you say "no attacks"? Did you forget, maybe carried away on your own false rhetoric? Were you hoping to fool people?

bob2356 says

The bill says immigrant detainees would have the right to access a lawyer on request

Does Mexico (or Qatar, or Syria) provide free attorneys to incarcerated Americans (or Guatemalans) awaiting deportation hearings at the Federales' (or Sheik's) expense?

Fuck no.

Rew says

The administration said ... Well, it doesn't apply to citizens, trust me.

The language was unclear as to whether that meant Green Card Holders (residents are NOT full citizens, but do have more standing in fighting deportation courts have ruled). Has been revised.

At NO point did the EO mention Citizens.

Rew says

The executive provided nothing further, and argued the court itself didn't have a right to rule or see anything. (Seems this is your argument now.)

All the Court did was allow the TRO to stand, declare Washington State's business interest in using foreign PhDs as wage cutting 101 class teachers and TAs, and RICH foreigner's full tuition grasping at State Universities, and affirm (like they do all the fucking time, a million times with Clinton, Bush, Obama executive actions that were contested) the right of judicial review.

Oh, and thereby making some suggestions on how a new EO could proceed.

"Does Mexico (or Qatar, or Syria) provide free attorneys to incarcerated Americans (or Guatemalans) awaiting deportation hearings at the Federales' (or Sheik's) expense? Fuck no."

You clearly missed Bob's point. Where does it say "free" lawyer? It says they have the right to a lawyer if they wish (and can afford one).

joeyjojojunior says

You clearly missed Bob's point. Where does it say "free" lawyer? It says they have the right to a lawyer if they wish (and can afford one).

Or if a free one volunteers from a Corporate/Foreign Government Backed ethnic special interest group like La Raza and CAIR. No, non-citizen, non-residents without a Visa or otherwise denied (a Visa does not guarantee entry, ie if you have Buboes all over your body and present your visa at Entry, you ain't getting in), can leave and petition the court back HOME. I have no problem with Skype hearings from Mexico.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris, a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, introduced her first piece of legislation today, the Access to Counsel Act, to ensure that those held or detained while attempting to enter the United States, whether at a border crossing or a port of entry, be guaranteed access to legal counsel.

There's also funding of immigration training for public defenders, for the Gov. Moonbeam's explicit purpose of helping criminal aliens not be deported if found guilty.

https://www.harris.senate.gov/content/following-muslim-ban-detentions-senator-harris-introduces-first-bill-guarantee-access

Guranteed access doesn't equal free lawyer.

Do you know what access means?

joeyjojojunior says

Guranteed access doesn't equal free lawyer.

Volunteers from The Race, Sieg Heil! or CAIR aren't free?

How about millions in training public defenders in immigration law to help their accused criminals evade deportation if convicted - on the taxpayers dime?

Wow, Sales Taxes go a long long way. Maybe CA can get rid of the state income tax, sales taxes pay for just so much.

I'm sure volunteers are free. That's pretty much the definition of volunteer. But it has nothing to do with a law that guarantees access.

I'll ask again--do you know what access means?

joeyjojojunior says

I'm sure volunteers are free. That's pretty much the definition of volunteer. But it has nothing to do with a law that guarantees access.

I'll ask again--do you know what access means?

Shessh, man, from the bill's own author's Senate website:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris, a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, introduced her first piece of legislation today, the Access to Counsel Act, to ensure that those held or detained while attempting to enter the United States, whether at a border crossing or a port of entry, be guaranteed access to legal counsel.

https://www.harris.senate.gov/content/following-muslim-ban-detentions-senator-harris-introduces-first-bill-guarantee-access

Why you on the side of multinational corporations looking to crush wages?

"Why you on the side of multinational corporations looking to crush wages?"

I'm not. I'm just trying to teach you what the word "access" means.

joeyjojojunior says

I'm not. I'm just trying to teach you what the word "access" means.

And I'm trying to teach you "Guaranteed".

Great--so what does guaranteed access in this sentence mean then?

(hint--it has nothing to do with the word "free")

joeyjojojunior says

Great--so what does guaranteed access in this sentence mean then?

It means non-citizens will be able to hang out at airports with their deportation delayed until their CAIR/La Raza appointed free volunteer lawyer shows up, guaranteeing them on the spot second-guessing of the executive branch DHS in each and every denied entry by the Judiciary.

Even though they are neither citizens nor residents but total foreigners.

"It means non-citizens will be able to hang out at airports with their deportation delayed until their CAIR/La Raza appointed free volunteer lawyer shows up, guaranteeing them on the spot second-guessing of the executive branch DHS in each and every denied entry by the Judiciary."

Bzzt. I'm sorry, that is incorrect.

Really? They won't be guaranteed access to counsel? Meaning that the judiciary - explicitly empowered by the Legislature - is going to wait to have the hearing until their guaranteed access volunteer lawyer shows up.

"Really? They won't be guaranteed access to counsel? Meaning that the judiciary - explicitly empowered by the Legislature - is going to wait to have the hearing until their guaranteed access volunteer lawyer shows up."

Again you're tripped up by the word access. That means if they have counsel, they have the right to access him/her. If they don't have counsel, they have no rights. If there is no volunteer, then they have nothing.

joeyjojojunior says

Again you're tripped up by the word access. That means if they have counsel, they have the right to access him/her. If they don't have counsel, they have no rights. If there is no volunteer, then they have nothing.

It means they have **guaranteed** access to counsel. If they call CAIR from entry and ask for a lawyer, they have to wait until counsel shows up before they can be deported.

Has no chance of passage, unless Graham and McCain convince a few other neocons to side with the Democrats.

"It means they have *guaranteed* access to counsel. If they call CAIR from entry and ask for a lawyer, they have to wait until counsel shows up before they can be deported."

Only if they have a CAIR lawyer.

joeyjojojunior says

Only if they have a CAIR lawyer.

Okay, so they have to have a CAIR lawyer lined up before they reach entry, before they board the plane in Al-Kuffarkillastan for Kennedy?

Hmmm, I don't see that anywhere.

The way it's explained by the AUTHOR HERSELF suggests any entrant being held for further processing or otherwise detained can access a lawyer.

Does that mean if DHS Finishes fast enough and bundles an entrant off back to Ali Baba Land before the lawyer is called, they're okay?

If so, what does "Guaranteed Access" mean?

"Where is my CAIR appointed lawyer?"

"Fine Ma'am, we are calling him"

"Well, Mr. DHS Supervisor, you can't show anything other than she is a Muslim who went to a certain mosque. Poor newlywed woman and her husband - Everything is in order. Now, are you going to let her in or do you want us to get an injunction and sue your ass off for denying this poor young bride entry?"

T L Lipsovich says

The way it's explained by the AUTHOR HERSELF suggests any entrant being held for further processing or otherwise detained can access a lawyer.

Does that mean if DHS Finishes fast enough and bundles an entrant off back to Ali Baba Land before the lawyer is called, they're okay?

If so, what does "Guaranteed Access" mean?

You rapidly becoming becoming TPB level stupid. Not a good look.

It's really simple and easily understood language. They can call a lawyer if they want to. What ever lawyer they please. There is nothing about free, there is nothing about government provided lawyer. They are guaranteed that they can call a lawyer. It's truly not hard to grasp.

My last contribution at attempting to educate the wilfully ignorant on the meaning of words than any not too bright 4th grader would have no trouble understanding.

"We can solve terrorism by not importing MENA dwellers without extreme vetting and denying them on the least red flag:
* attending Terrorist-Linked Red Mosque in Pakistan
* or that Ultra-Wahabi Girl's School in Saudi Arabia she also attended
* Or coming from a country with recent and ongoing rampant sectarian violence, unless they are a member of a minority group being actively oppressed"

Solve? I highly doubt it.

Working to prevent high-profile terrorist attacks is a necessary component of legitimacy of a democratic government. The the people are being protected by their democratic government.

When the government poo-pooh concerns about foreigners and foreign-influenced terrorism, people begin to think their government is prioritized for somebody else, perhaps people with interests in keeping wide-open borders, or good relations with extremist countries like Saudi Arabia.

This is often done openly as these pooh-poohers actively promote an ideology of open borders at all hazards with no restrictions and extra legal protections for non-citizen, non-resident, even non-immigrant visitors (the later is people who expressly have a "tourist" or "student" visa).

It's the same deal with "Punch Nazis in the face" for being radical right-wingers who want to impose a totalitarian regime.

If that's okay, then it's okay for me to punch women in Burkas, since by definition only radical right-wingers who want to impose a totalitarian theocratic regime wear Burkas.

Nevermind that the Nazi Punchers have such great "Nazidar" they burned a Muslim Immigrant's limo in DC, and knocked out a Syrian Shi'a at Berkeley

joeyjojojunior says

Solve? I highly doubt it.

But we sure can help prevent it. It's like the Wall. It won't be 100% effective - absolutely nothing in the world is 100% effective except your eventual death for some reason - but it will greatly impede illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

T L Lipsovich says

confusing accident with intent.

However many people may have died in a bathtub last year, it is very unlikely that bathtubs are conspiring to kill us all next year. Many Muslims are, in fact, conspiring to kill as many of us as possible ASAP. Islam hates us. The more people spread Islam, the more likely it becomes that believers will have an opportunity to teach their children to kill your children. Islam makes everyone worse off. Spreading Islam makes everyone worse off. I lose patience with the phony compassion and pretentious "courage" of people who try to signal bravery and virtue by importing Islam. They're putting other people in harm's way, and for the sole purpose of spreading a hateful fraud. If they gave a damn about the Muslim refugees they pretend to be helping, they'd stop bombing and invading their home countries and maybe provide shelter near their home countries and education to free them from the hateful fraud of Islam. The virtue signalers don't really care about the Muslims, they care only about the cherished fantasy of signaling virtue by pretending to help. A Petrodollar-driven combination of media channels, politicians, and trusted think tanks and universities have hypnotized them, creating a mass illusion. As at the recent Berkeley riots, the virtue signalers seem bonkers to everyone else, but they love shouting their outrage and pretentious, phony moral superiority.

Ironman says

It's only 7% that hates us:

In most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims damand Sharia, as Islam commands. Even in Britain, which has only 5% Muslims, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia and a majority of British Muslims believe gay couples should be incarcerated or killed, as per Sharia. So, it's a lot more than 7%. BTW, Sharia says to kill atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, blasphemers, basically everyone who does not submit to whichever mullah has the most weaponry. It is Mohamed's hateful fraud, and it served him during his life, but it should have died with him.