No, there wasn't much "quality" in the 9th circuit's "thinking", seems more like the usual knee-jerk liberal reaction. An intelligent judge, not overcome by the inherent distortions of his own ideological bias, would realize due process means "notice" and "hearing" requiring adjudication which is impossible without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, as every judge must know, is the capacity to determine the law in a specified ambitus. No US judge can adjudicate overseas, so foreigners overseas cannot have due process if they're denied a visa and thereby are unable to travel to the US. Unless the 9th Circuit envisions an arrangement whereby judges in US embassies and consulates can adjudicate on visa denials, otherwise rejected applicants would have to be allowed to travel to the US to have their visa rejection hearing.
Us which is "we" have always fought for and died for our country. Them is those who have fled the fight from their country and depend on others to fight for them. If their country isn't worth fighting for and dying for then why should Americans die for it. I say arm their young men train them to fight and then ship them back and let them fight and die for their freedom.
Refugees are entitled to asylum even if I they aren't "of fighting age" and don't come from someplace where the US has forces fighting for them, often they aren't and don't. All that is required a refugee show is some "well-founded fear of persecution" and the standard of proof is not high, but some evidence is required. The issue now is how to verify this in places where the US (and everyone else) has very little ability to verify the refugee's claim. It will always be difficult to verify a refugee's claim of persecution, no government is going to acknowledge it persecutes people, but in most cases the facts and circumstances of persecution are known and have been documented; someone from North Korea, a Rohinga from Malaysia, Chinese Uighurs, a Yazidi, Venezuelans who oppose Maduro, Copts from Egypt, Ukranians from the Dombass... these all could qualify for asylum, they just need to show who they are and where they come from. If you look at the list of places identified in President Trump's Executive Order, "majority Muslim" is not the most accurate description since there are over fifty countries with majority Muslim populations and dozens aren't on that Order. What characterizes all the countries Trump listed is that the US is most unable to verify any information on citizens from these places -and they have significant problems with Islamic fundamentalists. Trump's Order is a reaction to very reasonable concerns Islamic fundamentalists could secure access to the US by claiming to be refugees. This is a reasonable concern because it has been established many Islamic fundamentalists have claimed refugee status and secured asylum by falsely claiming persecution in the listed states; people from Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq and the others in fact have perpetrated terrorist attacks after securing shelter. In this situation, Trump reasonably demands a temporary delay in admitting people from the listed countries so a reliable system to better verify claims can be established. This is not a racist and religiously bigoted effort to ban people, it is a temporary condition aimed at improving security in a situation we know exposes us to a very high risk. It is only a knee-jerk reaction to Trump that induces the opposition to his Order, if Obama issued such an Order nobody would complain.
We are willing to lay down our lives for freedom and fight to keep it. I see no reason to sacrifice our men and woman for countries that only use us for their own internal wars and then afterwards are our enemies. If you have two factions in a country that hate each other but also have no use for our way of government, then, why should we get involved and take sides? Why let the losers into our country? Why let any religious group into our country that does not wish to abide by the laws of the Constitution and the laws of the state?
I certainly would not object to the closure of most of the 1,000+ US military bases overseas. I also object to the US military invading any foreign country without specific UN Security Council approval. I agree completely. The United Nations should be the force which intervenes to protect civilians. That should never be the excuse for invasion. Most refugees did not take part in any violent action- they are fleeing civilians, not ' losers ' Agreed. All refugees must abide by the laws of their host nation.
At the first safe country they travel to. They are not entitled to travel half way round the world to find the one with the best welfare system.
Personally I would like to see the US depart the UN. I would rather see us make treaties on most issues bilaterally. We should never ever put our nation under the control of other nations. Most UN resolutions are useless or biased. I don't see most Americans fleeing if we were invaded by a outside force. I do see granny's, grand-pa's and gun owners in America picking up arms and coming to the defense of their country and fighting for it. Can't say anymore if Democrats, Muslims, liberals and other assorted snowflakes would. Shame.
Didn't know an EO could do this. But opening up welfare to immigrants is just wishing for fiscal implosion. But it is utter irresponsible behavior to have ever done that in the first place. Faux liberals want it, but they never got the business education to understand many of their rainbow and unicorns fantasies are divorced from fiscal reality. As well as other realities which they see little more than an inconvenience. I see nothing in our founding documents that states we take in anyone who wants to come, and that our taxpayers will feed them and give them the resources needed to live. In fact for most or our time as a nation we used immigrants when warm bodies were needed for something. Like settling the frontier, like staffing our factories, that is, to not pull us down, but pull the nation up. Today legal and illegal immigration is not done for the good of America, quite the contrary. It is done to keep wages low for our elites, and to make faux liberals feel good about something, as long as they are not directly affected negatively by their rainbows and unicorns. If you tied immigration of the world's poor to a faux liberal, where it would personally cost them, affect their lives, they would turn into cold hearted bastards in a new York second. They are fooling no one here. This is a commonality with faux liberals. Just another hypocrisy from these people. We no longer need the world's poor, for work, and we cannot afford to put them on welfare. Things change. We are no longer a nation needing warm bodies. We have serious problems created by the greed of our elites with their scheme of open borders free trade, or slave labor economic models for our elites.
There aren't thousands of US military bases overseas, less than a hundred, including simple installations like satellite tracking radar and underwater microphone monitoring stations. Authentic refugees are supposed to seek asylum in the first place they are safe from persecution and not to travel around the world to gain shelter wherever they can enjoy the greatest support. However, there are a couple of considerations that facilitate their shelter beyond immediate safety. When there's a civil war and thousands get displaced, usually the government of the afflicted place will enable encampment away from the fighting and refugees sheltered there receive help from the Red Cross, UN and NGOs. If the civil war is long and when there are elements of ethnic and religious persecution, it often is necessary to move the refugees farther away. Often neighboring countries have ties to the displaced refugees and sheltering them there internationalizes the conflict, so the UN, Red Cross and NGOs try to arrange asylum in places capable and willing to take the refugees. These entities pressure potential hosts noting international obligations to shelter refugees and how other countries are helping. Ultimately arrangements are made to ship groups of refugees to different countries with the resources to help which have some political interest in highlighting their commitment to human rights, integration and their empathy. Additionally we have masses of migrants which are actually "economic refugees", they don't flee persecution, just seek opportunity. Most migrants from Subsaharan Africa are of this sort, the drought, poor infrastructure, corrupt government and lack of education leave them with little chance to improve their lot at home. One would think these people ought to organize, oust corrupt government and get their countries running, but often a lack of political tradition coupled with tyranny keeps them from bringing about any change. There is no obligation to accept or shelter these immigrants, countries that do usually just have inadequate controls over who gets in and can remain. All countries have immigration policies and these prioritize immigrants with ethnic, religious and other cultural affinities, the immigrant's education, skills and resources as well as any ties to the host are all considered. Critical lefties favor immigration policies that focus more on diversity than on the education, skills and resources of an immigrant.
No- there are 80,000 troops in 350 bases in Europe alone. Why would you want people to believe differently ? http://time.com/4511744/american-military-bases-overseas/
The Constitution seems to actually prohibit that. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Notice that taxes and other moneys collected by government can only be used for "the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". So using taxpayer money to build a wall is to defend the US, so that's fine, and not giving taxpayer money to illegals is without doubt for the general welfare of the US. It doesn't say for the people, but simply the United States.
Buried deep in the Trump administration's plans to round up undocumented immigrants is a provision certain to enrage Mexico new authority for federal agents to deport anyone caught crossing the southern border to Mexico, regardless of where they are from. If present immigration trends continue, that could mean the United States would push hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, Brazilians, Ecuadorans, even Haitians into Mexico. Currently, such people are detained in the U.S. and allowed to request asylum. President Trump wants them to do so from Mexico, communicating via video conference calls with U.S. immigration officials from facilities that Mexico would presumably be forced to build. "This would say if you want to make a claim for asylum or whatever we'll hear your case but you are going to wait in Mexico," a DHS official said. "Those are details that are being worked out both within the department and between the US government and the government of Mexico there are elements that still need to be worked out in detail. Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will travel to Mexico later this week to meet with representatives of the Mexican government. It remains unclear if they will discuss this issue. http://www.business-standard.com/ar...regardless-of-nationality-117022200201_1.html
Maybe we can open a welfare office on the other side of the border so the illegals can apply for benefits. If they get turned down maybe they wont try and cross.
What do we, the true Americans, get in return? Your logic is almost laughable except you believe it. It's like having one of my kids sponging off me, laying on the couch, eating my twinkie's and drinking my beer but never pitching in to help around the house. You did notice this blog was about ILLEGALS. The only thing ILLEGALS deserve are shackles and a trip to the border and a kick in the pants to the other side.
I'm not sure that their commitments to the UN Charter would allow them to trade freely with a non- United Nations state. I can't even think of one. I had a look. The USA will be able to trade freely with Taiwan and Kosovo. Perhaps undermining the entire UN structure would be in the interests of American businessmen.
The US (and any nation) can trade with any other regardless of the UN, just look at North Korea, sanctioned, banned and outlawed by the UN for decades -and regularly trading billions of dollars with China. Though I'm sure critical lefties see Trump as oppressive and repressive as North Korea's Kim, this is exaggerating and the US has a substantial economy with extensive international ties which must be beneficial to its trading partners too. If the US withdrew from the UN trade would be virtually unaffected, the only effect the UN has on trade is in its limitation either by ineffectual bans (as with North Korea) or with unenforceable restrictions poorly applied to prevent employment of children, slave labor, those African "blood diamonds", endangered species and such. The US doesn't engage in much trade of the restricted sort, this type of activity is already well restricted by US laws that protect the health, safety and welfare of it's citizens. On the sheltering of refugees at the first place they find safety I would note Uganda has more refugees from Sudan than all the immigrants who've fled to Europe since the war in Syria (https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...or-refugees-by-jorge-moreira-da-silva-2017-02). I think the UN Committee on Refugees exaggerates the numbers, 60 million displaced are not all refugees, there are many, but they don't all flee a well-founded fear of persecution, they could be persecuted, might be if they were sent back, but most could survive just as many do -despite the poverty and repression where they come from. It would be nice if developed countries applied some effort to remedy the plight of people massively migrating westward, some global plan to improve conditions at the source, but most such plans are actually neocolonialism. We haven't figured a way to both guarantee sovereignty and development in poor places, money can be sent, but it just props up the repressors. To the degree repressors are not supporter with development aid, those efforts disguise foreign intervention in sovereign affairs.
But he wants to increase our nuke (how much waste is that for something we likely will never use and what we have now is good enough to destroy the planet) and our military (we already spend more than nearly all countries combined) And this while giving tax cuts to billionaires. Seriously, conservatives truly are scumbags. THey stand for nothing moral, and against what Jesus stood for. Why not just line up poor people and kill them while you are at it. Take away healthcare, don't do anything to give them jobs and jobs that pay livable wages, now take away their only source of food or enough to get by. Yeah, they won't get desperate or anything. SEriously, is there such a thing as a smart conservative? I'm serious, the stupidity I see on a daily basis is just unreal. Still believing this fake nonsense that illegals are costing this country billions of dollars. A good study in how well propaganda works
Same with Israel- but both Israel and N. Korea are UN member states- criminal states but members nonetheless.
You can spin it in that manner, which of course you did. But even Milton Friedman had an idea of giving people income. An experiment in a town in Canada had positive results, socially. Poverty creates crime, always has, always will. During the great depression, hobos would steal my grandparents eggs, but always left what they could not eat. So they allowed it to go on. They would have given the hungry food if only they had asked, and many did. If AI, and robotics replaces us a workers, we will all be getting an income from the work done on our behalf by AI and robots, or the economy implodes. So, it is coming sooner or later. Might as well accept the inevitable, a future where some conservative values are irrelevant.
