• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

RJKarl said:
Neither W's nor Obama's comprehensive immigration plans were amnesty regardless of what RWers want to call them. Amnesty means no penalties or requirements to stay.
Click to expand...

Amnesty means having your violations forgiven. If you want to continue to harp on this penalty or fine nonsense as a precondition for what meets your definition of amnesty, then continue to be incorrect by all means. If you are illegal and go through a process of forgiveness that suddenly makes you legal, it's an amnesty. Hiding behind definitions and semantics is what politicians do when they don't want their voting base to rise against them.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Amnesty means having your violations forgiven. If you want to continue to harp on this penalty or fine nonsense as a precondition for what meets your definition of amnesty, then continue to be incorrect by all means. If you are illegal and go through a process of forgiveness that suddenly makes you legal, it's an amnesty. Hiding behind definitions and semantics is what politicians do when they don't want their voting base to rise against them.
Click to expand...

Amnesty means there is process and all is forgiven. There are no other criteria like no other crimes or no illegal activities during the decade it takes to become permanent. Amnesty means you are immediately permanent.
 
RJKarl said:
Neither W's nor Obama's comprehensive immigration plans were amnesty regardless of what RWers want to call them. Amnesty means no penalties or requirements to stay.
Click to expand...

Love it when rj makes up his own definitions. Amnesty can have conditions. Look up Ford's amnesty of Vietnam era draft dodgers.
 
WFU71 said:
Love it when rj makes up his own definitions. Amnesty can have conditions. Look up Ford's amnesty of Vietnam era draft dodgers.
Click to expand...

I didn't make up my own definition. That's what W, McCain and other supporters of his plan said. Even Marco Rubio said the "Gang of Eight Plan" under Obama wasn't amnesty. I am simply agreeing with the definition of a wide swath of experts and leaders on this subjects.

71, I realize I am low-hanging fruit for you, but I am hardly making up my own definitions here. But keep your recent spate of bullshit if it makes you feel better about yourself.

In addition to W, McCain, Rubio and Obama, here are two other voices about this, one left, one right:
"Frank Sharry, director of the pro-citizenship group America’s Voice, said he agrees with Rubio that the bill does not offer amnesty.

"If you look at what the consequences are -- first of all you have to come forward and register, submit to a background check. You have to pay fines," he said. "To me it’s kind of like people who are caught for speeding. If you get caught for speeding in many states, they say ‘okay, you have to pay a fine, take a class, lose your license for a while and you’ll be reinstated.’ No one calls that an amnesty."

Alex Nowrasteh, with the libertarian Cato Institute, agreed.

"This bill includes numerous punishments for unauthorized immigrants who broke the laws, including paying fines and other legal sanctions," he said. "If it was amnesty they would be legalized immediately with no punishment, no process. They would just be forgiven and handed a green card."

But keep on saying I am making things up 71.
 
Last edited:
"Even Marco Rubio..."
LOL! Like Rubio is gonna say, "I just helped create the latest Amnesty Bill." That would go over real well.
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
2. 50k is the statutory minimum I believe. He doesn't have authority to go below that.
Click to expand...


EatLeadCommie said:
2 - You're probably right here. You definitely are if it's the statutory cap.
Click to expand...

I am not an immigration lawyer, but I don't think this is true. In refugee act of 1980, which is the amendment to to immigration law that formally established the refugee resettlement program, the language concerns itself more with a cap, rather than a mandatory minimum (since conceivably, although not practically or realistically, there could be fewer than 50,000 refugees eligible to resettle). The act allows for the resettlement of up to 50,000 refugees, but the president can in each fiscal year raise that cap in response to an emergency refugee situation and is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

I think he could drop it below 50,000, but that would signal a huge change in the application of the law. The president has a lot of leeway in determining the cap on refugees, which is why I think the refugee stay is the part of the EO which has the least likelihood of being overturned.
 
RJKarl said:
Amnesty means there is process and all is forgiven. There are no other criteria like no other crimes or no illegal activities during the decade it takes to become permanent. Amnesty means you are immediately permanent.
Click to expand...

Then I guess by your definition Reagan never did have that amnesty you like to talk about so much.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
I am not an immigration lawyer, but I don't think this is true. In refugee act of 1980, which is the amendment to to immigration law that formally established the refugee resettlement program, the language concerns itself more with a cap, rather than a mandatory minimum (since conceivably, although not practically or realistically, there could be fewer than 50,000 refugees eligible to resettle). The act allows for the resettlement of up to 50,000 refugees, but the president can in each fiscal year raise that cap in response to an emergency refugee situation and is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

I think he could drop it below 50,000, but that would signal a huge change in the application of the law. The president has a lot of leeway in determining the cap on refugees, which is why I think the refugee stay is the part of the EO which has the least likelihood of being overturned.
Click to expand...

OK, good info.

For you lawyer types out there, am I correct in assuming there is a much lower threshold for an injunction than there is for an actual final ruling?
 
Those pesky other branches of government apparently oppose his ideas/declarations also.
 
avalon said:
Inside the White House-Cabinet battle over Trump’s immigration order

The confrontation between Bannon and Kelly pitted a political operator against a military disciplinarian. Respectfully but firmly, the retired general and longtime Marine told Bannon that despite his high position in the White House and close relationship with Trump, the former Breitbart chief was not in Kelly’s chain of command, two administration officials said. If the president wanted Kelly to back off from issuing the waiver, Kelly would have to hear it from the president directly, he told Bannon.
Click to expand...



Bannon wanted to continue to bar green card holders from entering the country.
Click to expand...

i got tickled when i read that for some reason. I can see a no-nonsense retired general chuckling and then beginning to explain to bannon how actual orders flow through an existing, established power structure--one which he is not part of.
 
RJKarl said:
I didn't make up my own definition. That's what W, McCain and other supporters of his plan said. Even Marco Rubio said the "Gang of Eight Plan" under Obama wasn't amnesty. I am simply agreeing with the definition of a wide swath of experts and leaders on this subjects.

71, I realize I am low-hanging fruit for you, but I am hardly making up my own definitions here. But keep your recent spate of bullshit if it makes you feel better about yourself.

In addition to W, McCain, Rubio and Obama, here are two other voices about this, one left, one right:
"Frank Sharry, director of the pro-citizenship group America’s Voice, said he agrees with Rubio that the bill does not offer amnesty.

"If you look at what the consequences are -- first of all you have to come forward and register, submit to a background check. You have to pay fines," he said. "To me it’s kind of like people who are caught for speeding. If you get caught for speeding in many states, they say ‘okay, you have to pay a fine, take a class, lose your license for a while and you’ll be reinstated.’ No one calls that an amnesty."

Alex Nowrasteh, with the libertarian Cato Institute, agreed.

"This bill includes numerous punishments for unauthorized immigrants who broke the laws, including paying fines and other legal sanctions," he said. "If it was amnesty they would be legalized immediately with no punishment, no process. They would just be forgiven and handed a green card."

But keep on saying I am making things up 71.
Click to expand...

A swing and a miss.

This is really simple, rj. You made a statement "Amnesty means no penalties or requirements to stay". I simply pointed out that amnesty can mean much more than your limited definition. I made no comment about any particular bill or actions by Obama, Bush or anyone else; therefore, your mini-tirade in the quoted text is meaningless in relation to my simple statement.

I am curious about your assertion about my "recent spate of bullshit". Where the fuck does that come from? Are you holding a grudge from some past differences?
 
My definition exactly mirrors theirs and the mainstream, but you nitpicked. You've done the same thing several over the past few months which is new for you.
 
RJKarl said:
My definition exactly mirrors theirs and the mainstream, but you nitpicked. You've done the same thing several over the past few months which is new for you.
Click to expand...

Now, that's bullshit.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
1 - Religious persecution has been a longstanding basis for asylum and refugee claims over the years. If they find it impermissible, they would be undoing years of precedent all for the sake of undermining Trump.

2 - You're probably right here. You definitely are if it's the statutory cap.

3 - I'm not disagreeing with the state claim to harm, which is sufficient to order an injunction in itself. The larger question is at what point do the feds have an interest that supersedes that of the states, and at what point does the state interest preempt the federal ability to enforce immigration law? We know in the case of the latter that it doesn't, so does that render the former moot?
Click to expand...

1. Allowing asylum for religious persecution and denying visas based on a particular religion are completely unconnected things. Normally, anyone who has suffered persecution based on their religion, regardless of which religion it is, is eligible for asylum. The constitutional issue with the executive order is that it disfavors Muslims in relation to other religions. Saying that the executive can't do that would in no way disturb existing asylum law, because existing asylum law doesn't distinguish between religions in regard to persecuted people.

2. Looks like I might be wrong about Trump not having the authority to reduce the number. Still it would be a massive break with almost 40 years of practice.

3. You're jumbling a bunch of separate legal concepts. The injury doesn't become moot just because of possible preemption. Preemption is a merits argument. The states have standing to challenge the law, they might lose, but they have standing to have it adjudicated (at least under the Fifth Circuit test)
 
EatLeadCommie said:
OK, good info.

For you lawyer types out there, am I correct in assuming there is a much lower threshold for an injunction than there is for an actual final ruling?
Click to expand...

One of the factors that the court is supposed to consider in issuing an injunction is the likelihood that you will win the case. So maybe a lower threshold, although I think it practice, you're probably not going to get an injunction unless it looks like you have a winning case.
 
"You don't have to be a fascist or a racist or even a Trumpian to not want to import people into your society who think cartoonists should be killed for drawing the prophet," Harris told Maher.
 
dc6GAn6.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top