In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 05 2017 14:49 LegalLord wrote: I like this graphic, and I think the leftist communist SJW regressive left (among others) will appreciate it.
On February 05 2017 10:58 biology]major wrote: So what happens if it goes to scotus and 4-4?
The previous decision holds; no precedent is established.
Here's something I really never understood: what if it's a case that's in the scotus's original jurisdiction? And why isn't this case original jurisdiction? It's a lawsuit between the states and the administration, right?
The situation is not so clear for Original Jurisdiction Deadlocks. In these cases, there is no lower court ruling to affirm. There have been only two original jurisdiction deadlocks. Michael Coenen summarizes:
First, in the nineteenth century case of Virginia v. West Virginia, Chief Justice Chase announced that the Justices were “equally divided on the demurrer, and equally divided also upon the order which should be made in consequence of that division.” As a result, the matter stood unresolved for nearly three years.
Second, in the twentieth-century disbarment action of In re Isserman, the Court split evenly on the question of disbarment but ordered disbarment anyway. One year later, the Court changed its mind and overruled its prior decision.
The original post also links to a pdf that describes it in even more detail.
Interesting. I'm still confused as to why this wasn't an original jurisdiction case, but thanks for the resource on the matter. Crazy that 4-4 ties under original jurisdiction have happened so rarely.
On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote: This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.
If that were the problem, put a stop on the refugee program. But that's not what happened.
If that were the real justification, t's like having a mosquito problem in your home, and instead of shutting the windows, you nuke your home. Mosquitos are dead, right?
On February 05 2017 06:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 05 2017 06:19 xDaunt wrote: Just to clarify, the problem with applying the altnernative analysis in this context is that it allows courts to completely sidestep critical governmental interests. That can't be right, particularly in the context of national security.
Travel ban on random counties is now "National security" I didn't realise that USA has become one of those authoritarian states. The doublespeak is real.
This is quite important, in this whole discussion nobody has ever bothered explaining what exactly the problems of American security are that warrant this measure. The only thing that seems to count is apparently the vague idea of 'not being safe enough' which seems to be a gut feeling of sorts.
By just pointing to a vague threat out there and public safety you can really justify anything no matter how unlawful or inappropriate. This loops back to the whole problem of politics not operating on reality any more.
This was the judge's point, he wanted facts to support the 'national security' concern, not feelings. I still don't get how a judge is entitled to that opinion since he doesn't have all the relevant intelligence.
Also did anyone else see Trump's prediction on 9/11? Dumb luck or good instinct?
Wow,i didn't knew about this and had to google it. He actually did predict a big attack one year before 9/1. Good instinct I think,though the motive for an attack has been there for decades and it should not have come as that big as of a surprise,other then that they actually managed to pull it off. All this kinda is in trumps favor when it comes to this executive order.
haven't looked into this in detail, but quite googling indicates he didn't particularly predict an attack, and at any rate, the question is not whether you made a prediction and it came true, the question is how many of your predictions came true? trump says a LOT of stuff. a lot of it is wrong, some of it would be right by chance. if you make enough predictions some will be right.
also, if someone makes a vague prediction and turns out to be right, it might just be because the prediction was vague enough it could've applied ot a lot of things, and it's not hard to find something after the fact that could plausibly be the thing described.
there's a bunch of psych research and other research into this and related phenomena if you'd like some more details.
This.
Nostradamus predicted 9/11 too. Amazing insights into the problems of the 21st century and he knew it all theway back in the middle ages!
On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote: This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.
If that were the problem, put a stop on the refugee program. But that's not what happened.
If that were the real justification, t's like having a mosquito problem in your home, and instead of shutting the windows, you nuke your home. Mosquitos are dead, right?
I think there's very few people on the right who wouldn't agree that Trump's travel ban as-implemented was complete shit. There's also very few people on the left who wouldn't agree that some level of tightened control over immigration would make America safer.
The problem is finding the place to meet in the middle, and in how much incompetence from the Trump Administration we're willing to put up with on the way to a solution.
On February 05 2017 20:22 warding wrote: If immigrants, on average, commit fewer crimes than natives, isn't stopping immigration making America more dangerous?
That's not how accumulation works. 1 + 1 + 0.5 is larger than 1 + 1. The concentration might rise but not the magnitude.
On February 05 2017 20:22 warding wrote: If immigrants, on average, commit fewer crimes than natives, isn't stopping immigration making America more dangerous?
That's not how accumulation works. 1 + 1 + 0.5 is larger than 1 + 1. The concentration might rise but not the magnitude.
Concentration in this regard obviously matters the most. The lower the homicide rate, the smaller the chance you'll get killed, the less dangerous the country is.
yeah if you're talking about safety of a country then obviously concentration is what you're looking for. A country with 50 million people and 1000 murders per year is much safer than a country with 5 million people and 500 murders per year, even though twice as many people were killed.
On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote: This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.
If that were the problem, put a stop on the refugee program. But that's not what happened.
If that were the real justification, t's like having a mosquito problem in your home, and instead of shutting the windows, you nuke your home. Mosquitos are dead, right?
There's also very few people on the left who wouldn't agree that some level of tightened control over immigration would make America safer.
Well it's a captain obvious that the tighter you have control over something the safer you are, but that's not really indicative that there is a middle ground to be found between the two positions. My guess is most people on the left think the control that the US has now is already sufficient.
On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote: This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.
If that were the problem, put a stop on the refugee program. But that's not what happened.
If that were the real justification, t's like having a mosquito problem in your home, and instead of shutting the windows, you nuke your home. Mosquitos are dead, right?
There's also very few people on the left who wouldn't agree that some level of tightened control over immigration would make America safer.
Well it's a captain obvious that the tighter you have control over something the safer you are, but that's not really indicative that there is a middle ground to be found between the two positions. My guess is most people on the left think the control that the US has now is already sufficient.
It's not that obvious. By discriminating against Muslims and acting like the USA is at war with all of Islam, you run the risk of stemming more radicalisation. It's like the use of force by the police; it does not necessarily lead to more secure communities.
Before anyone starts throwing any adjectives, Id describe myself as a right of center atheist. Thanks.
I think the focus should be less on the degree of control the US government exerts over the border/immigration policies and more on what exactly that control looks like. It should be clear the when you are a nation as massive and diverse as the US, particularly given today's pervasive spread of access to information across national lines, old fashioned "don't let people in from this country" style immigration policies just don't match up very well with the reality of administration.
Instead, it'd be far more effective to focus on economic diplomacy and the extent to which the plight of neighboring countries is directly tied up with our own in a way that channels effective cooperation. For example, strengthening the peso would do wonders for disincentivizing labor tourism as there'd be less and less reason for the males of Mexican families to travel hundreds of miles away when they can get a job nearby that now pays better given the the improved hourly value of Mexican labor.
Thanks to Trump, approaches like that will likely have to wait 4 or 8 years.
On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote: This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.
If that were the problem, put a stop on the refugee program. But that's not what happened.
If that were the real justification, t's like having a mosquito problem in your home, and instead of shutting the windows, you nuke your home. Mosquitos are dead, right?
There's also very few people on the left who wouldn't agree that some level of tightened control over immigration would make America safer.
Well it's a captain obvious that the tighter you have control over something the safer you are, but that's not really indicative that there is a middle ground to be found between the two positions. My guess is most people on the left think the control that the US has now is already sufficient.
It's not that obvious. By discriminating against Muslims and acting like the USA is at war with all of Islam, you run the risk of stemming more radicalisation. It's like the use of force by the police; it does not necessarily lead to more secure communities.
Before anyone starts throwing any adjectives, Id describe myself as a right of center atheist. Thanks.
You have added a new variable here with the discrimination, which creates the risk. The initial setting was simply "tightened control" which does by definition make it less likely that something bad happens.
On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote: This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.
If that were the problem, put a stop on the refugee program. But that's not what happened.
If that were the real justification, t's like having a mosquito problem in your home, and instead of shutting the windows, you nuke your home. Mosquitos are dead, right?
There's also very few people on the left who wouldn't agree that some level of tightened control over immigration would make America safer.
Well it's a captain obvious that the tighter you have control over something the safer you are, but that's not really indicative that there is a middle ground to be found between the two positions. My guess is most people on the left think the control that the US has now is already sufficient.
It's not that obvious. By discriminating against Muslims and acting like the USA is at war with all of Islam, you run the risk of stemming more radicalisation. It's like the use of force by the police; it does not necessarily lead to more secure communities.
Before anyone starts throwing any adjectives, Id describe myself as a right of center atheist. Thanks.
Regarding increasing radicalization: exactly the same can be said for doing things such as invading Iraq, droning & terrorizing families in Afghanistan, funding the "moderate" opposition in Syria, as well as NSA-hacking that resulted in a complete internet blackout (which was likely blamed on Assad by that same opposition), weaponizing extremist regimes that bomb the entire infrastructure of neighbouring countries (like in Yemen) whilst fuelling Wahhabi propaganda in other regions at the same time, or doing things such as pretending to vaccinate people as a cover-up to find terrorists (which fuels & legitimises the already radical conspiracy theories that float around in the Middle East).
However, arguments such as "run[ning] the risk of stemming more radicalisation" didn't stop previous administrations from doing exactly these things with generally widespread support from both sides of the political aisle. To pretend that the so-called Muslim ban (which very clearly and obviously targets countries with ISIS presence, and has nothing to do with Trump's financial interests, or even Muslims in general) is somehow 'too much' or 'not in line with American values' is a fucking joke. The United States has been a joke for a long time, and it's extremist punchline after a several decades long build-up is Trump.
Is that what dems mean when they keep saying "immigration reform" as a nebulous term that no one understands? To ignore our immigration process and it's weaknesses and to help other countries become great again so they don't even want to come to thtenUSA? Genius!
The original post also links to a pdf that describes it in even more detail.
It's not surprising considering how harsh the mainstream media has been to the guy. I mean CNN was trying to blame the violent protests (riots) at UC Berkeley where they had to can Milo Yiannopoulous' speech the other night on Pro-Trump agitators within the crowd. It's really getting bizarre out there in Anti-Trump land.
On February 05 2017 09:01 zlefin wrote: It is indeed interesting how it's not so much the refugees/immigrants themselves that are terrorists, but the 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants that do so. that also presents an interesting ethical quandary: what to do if the threat comes not from the immigrants themselves, who behave fine, and not from some sort of improper parenting, but simply from the difficulties of fitting in for the children of the immigrants through societal processes not well understood?
This is a great point and I think an underestimated concern with refugee immigration, or immigration in general from these unstable countries. Given that refugees get to rely on the state, and also have a hard time with finding employment, the children aren't going to be in great conditions and are more prone to radicalization.
Do you think having policies that declare them the enemy for no good reason will impact the chances of, let's say, children of iranian americans to radicalize in the future?
Im sure stories of their family members being killed in random drone strikes or propaganda from ISIS don't really do it for them. They really need us to declare radical Islam an enemy before they all of a sudden decide to join ISIS.
On February 05 2017 23:51 biology]major wrote: Is that what dems mean when they keep saying "immigration reform" as a nebulous term that no one understands? To ignore our immigration process and it's weaknesses and to help other countries become great again so they don't even want to come to thtenUSA? Genius!
Obama was Deporter in Chief, so try harder, genius.
EPT
